This is what happens when voters are driven by emotion rather than data. Hopefully, the county commissioners and the voters will remember that when it comes time to plan and vote on flood control bonds. From the InBox:
Bill King
In 2001, the last year before Metro began spending money on light rail, Houstonians took over 89 million trips on Metro’s local bus service.[i] Last year, the combined trips on the local bus service and the light rail system came in at about 76 million, a decline of over 14% since 2001. [ii] Over that period Harris County’s population has grown by over 30%.
Considering that after Metro invested $2.2 billion in light rail, yet fewer Houstonians are opting to take transit, it seems a good time to ask: Was it worth it?
This, of course, is not what the promoters of Metro’s light rail system promised back in 2003. Nor, I expect, is it what the voters thought they were going to get when they voted in favor of the 2003 referendum which authorized the construction of the light rail system. The rosy projections of increased transit ridership originally promised in 2003 have long since been abandoned. Instead, the program appears to have mostly converted a significant portion of bus riders to light rail riders.[iii]
This means the light rail has done virtually nothing to reduce congestion. Getting some buses off the street probably improves congestion to some minimal degree, but then I have never been in a traffic jam on Harrisburg anyway. And the light rail causes its own congestion, like the fact that we can no longer synchronize the lights downtown.
Although Metro’s leadership appears to have mostly abandoned the idea of building more light rail, it still seeks to justify the investment on a variety of other grounds.
It argues, for example, that the light rail has spurred development in the areas it serves. And there is some evidence that supports that contention. The East End is certainly experiencing a revival that more or less coincides with the light rail being extended into that neighborhood. To what degree that new development was caused by the light rail or independent of it is difficult to ascertain.
In my opinion, Metro undermines its credibility by frequently citing the total new development along the light rail lines. I think the last number I heard was $8 billion. But that includes all the new development in the Texas Medical Center, which had absolutely nothing to do with the light rail.
But whether there have been any collateral advantages from the construction of the light rail system is not the question we should be asking ourselves. The question should be: Why did Houstonians support building in the first place?
I don’t have any polling from the time of the referendum, but polling on transit over a long period of time has shown that most people support transit because they hope someone else will take it and relieve the congestion they experience. (SeeIf So Many People Support Mass Transit, Why Do So Few Ride?, Eric Jaffe, City Lab, September 22, 2014.) Contrary to the public’s impression, very little definitive scholarly research shows that transit reduces congestion.
This raises what I have always thought that is one of Metro’s principal problems: the lack of clear objectives. Metro’s vision and mission statements are so vague that they can be interpreted to mean anything. Interesting, neither even mentions the word “congestion”. (Click [here]to read vision and mission statements.)
It is impossible to manage an organization that does not have a clear objective(s). This is a conversation we need to have. What do we want Metro to do? Is it to reduce congestion? Provide transportation to those who cannot afford a car or are physically incapable of operating one? Spur redevelopment? Perhaps Metro should have another referendum to answer this fundamental question.
And then the question we will have to ask ourselves: What is the most cost-effective strategy to accomplish the objective(s)? There is no way to know that answer, until we know the objective. But I doubt light rail, especially at-grade light rail, is going to be the solution for any objective.
In the meantime think about this. What could we have done instead with the $2.2 billion that was spent on light rail? The answer is lots. Like solving most of our flooding problem or resurfacing virtually every street in the street in the City or repairing our dilapidated wastewater system or putting more police officers on the streets or demolishing some of the thousands of dangerous buildings in the City or any one of dozens of other critical priorities facing the City.
The question is not whether light rail is a good thing or not. The question is whether it was the best use of $2.2 billion of taxpayer money. The answer to that question is pretty clearly, “No.”
[i] Metro keeps separate ridership statistics on its local service, which covers the city street grid, and its “Park & Ride” service, which shuttles passengers from the suburbs using its HOV system.
[ii] The FTA counts “unlinked” trips. That is anytime a transit rider get on a transit vehicle. Because riders frequently must transfer between buses and/or trains, a single commute can result in a transit agency (including Metro) counting a single commute two or more times. Some Metro critics argue that Metro’s ridership statistics are inflated because the light rail system resulted in more transfers as riders were forced to take a bus to an LRT terminus to continue their trip. I have not found any data that would support or refute this claim. Metro can track transfers on riders which use the Metrocard, but it has only aggregated that data for one short term study fairly recently. I cannot think of any way to reconstruct the data going back to 2003.
[iii] At least, that is what pretty clearly happened when the original red line on Main Street was opened 2004-2005. It also appears to have occurred when the Main Street line was extended to the north in 2013. However, there was an increase in ridership when the East End and University lines were opened in 2015, without any corresponding decrease in bus ridership. This was about the same time that Metro rolled out its Reimagine program, which dramatically restructured its bus routes. So, it is difficult to sort out whether the new light rail lines had fundamentally different ridership dynamics or if there was a loss in ridership along those lines like the Main Street line that was offset by an increase in ridership from Reimagine.
The stretch of Loop 610 between I-10 and I-59 is one of the most congested traffic areas in the United States.
The Uptown TIRZ has offered to alleviate some of this congestion by building the Guide Way (dual dedicated bus lanes down the middle of Post Oak Boulevard), at a budgeted cost of $200 million. Ultimately, like any other government plan, it will most likely cost much more than the projected budgeted amount and it is Houston taxpayers who will foot the bill.
The plan, as proposed, will undoubtedly create traffic congestion on Post Oak, where congestion is currently minimal, and throughout the Galleria. The Guide Way (a faux version of BRT or Bus Rapid Transit), will be a 1.9-mile section of exclusive bus lanes, which will emanate from the Northwest Transit Center’s 200-car garage and run to a new 250-car garage at the new (yet to be built) Westpark Transit Center, with many stops in-between.
The Uptown TIRZ claims that over ten thousand (10,000) riders, primarily Galleria office dwellers, will transition from remote Park ‘n Rides daily (parenthetically leaving their unguarded vehicles subject to break in), board busses, transfer busses at one of the Transit Centers, and ride busses (note the plural) to work and back.
Once off the bus, they’ll then cross three lanes of traffic and possibly two bus lanes to get to and from their office buildings; and pay money (rider cost currently up in the air) to do so. The Uptown TIRZ claims that riders will do this in lieu of taking advantage of what is most often employer provided paid parking in their respective office buildings’ garage. This trade-off doesn’t sound like a particularly likely scenario to me, but I’m only one Galleria office dweller.
Why has there never been a real survey of major Galleria employers and employees as to their willingness to participate in this “utopian” program?
Bus route after bus route down Post Oak has failed due to lack of ridership. Why does the Uptown TIRZ think that this time will be different? And how is it that they are being allowed to bet tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on this unlikely outcome? Cui bono?
One must acknowledge that what congestion exists in the Galleria primarily comes from folks trying to get on or off Loop 610. To alleviate the admittedly bad congestion on 610 –and that caused by commuters getting on and off 610 – I believe that the best solution would be for TXDOT to double-deck this portion of the Loop, so through traffic from I-59 to I-10 would no longer need to mix with “local” traffic exiting in the Galleria. My bet, hundreds of millions of dollars of bus lanes (1.9 miles @ a conservative $19,936.20 per foot to construct) ain’t gonna do it.
The Uptown TIRZ plan will cut Post Oak Boulevard in half, magnifying the area’s relatively minor traffic congestion and creating dangerous confusion. The Uptown TIRZ boasts that all current traffic lanes will be maintained, but the plan specifically removes the “exclusive right turn, southbound lane at San Felipe and Westheimer.” The Guide Way will close three open-turn medians on Post Oak. It can’t help but snarl east-west traffic on San Felipe, Westheimer, and Richmond as virtually empty busses in dedicated lanes, utilize TSP (Traffic Signal Preemption), like Downtown’s light rail. The Uptown TIRZ plan will trade what I believe at best will be a minute improvement on 610, for massive disruption on Uptown streets. Cui bono?
If the Uptown TIRZ plan goes forward, traffic will be disrupted even more as construction (now getting underway between 610 and San Felipe on Post Oak) cuts traffic to two lanes in each direction; and eliminates the medians, trees and landscaping that we have all come to appreciate in the asphalt jungle we call home.
The disruption will last well into 2018, assuming the project does something no government project ever does – comes in on schedule. With the city facing a major budget deficit and credit downgrades, this is not the time for a WPA-like “make work” project. The increased congestion and loss of access will soon begin to drastically exacerbate the decline in sales taxes (already taking place due to depressed oil prices) and property taxes in one of the nation’s most prestigious mixed use (shopping, office, residential) districts.
Medium term, it will drive surviving office tenants elsewhere as their leases expire, speeding flight to the more accessible suburbs of Harris, Ft. Bend, and Montgomery counties. Hang on Energy Corridor developers, misguided METRO rail projects and skyrocketing property taxes will shortly lead to an exodus from the CBD and the Guide Way (and skyrocketing property taxes) will lead to a similar exodus from the Galleria.
If this were about effective, efficient transportation, any one of the alternatives proposed below could have been chosen. They offer a chance of addressing the Galleria’s relatively minor congestion problems without creating monstrous new ones on Westheimer, San Felipe and Richmond:
Van pooling, common in Seattle and Silicon Valley, could be implemented with 11-passenger vans, outfitted with leather captain’s chairs and Wi-Fi taking passengers straight to the office door, enabling them to work an extra hour a day.
Efforts could be made to encourage carpooling, ride sharing, and use of the existing underutilized METRO bus system.
Diamond lanes, like those downtown, could limit the use of right hand lanes to buses, vans or other HOVs during peak hours.
These potential options for alternate transit considering current car driving commuters are all better alternatives than this ill-conceived project, particularly in far flung Houston, where less than 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of commuters now use public transportation.
But no, the Uptown TIRZ board appears to have another agenda. What is their agenda and…cui bono?
The Uptown TIRZ board has authorized bonds to pay condemnation proceeds for land along the route. Cui bono?
City funds have already been used to install utilities to increase water and sewer capacity for new high rise developments in Uptown which they dream will be akin to City Centre (located at Beltway 8 and I-10), but on steroids. “Build it, they will come!” Cui bono?
Prudence should demand that Mayor Turner put the brakes on this ill-conceived project, perhaps re-calling the money that the Uptown TIRZ has already collected, and put it toward the recently identified monster deficit that his predecessor left him. Transit-wise, he could help METRO address their aging bus fleet (30{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of which is over 14 years old); he could address the need for more handicapped access, etc.; bottom line, he could help those who really need assistance with public transportation, METRO’s primary charge.
I believe he should halt this project before 18 plus months of traffic congestion and road construction drastically cuts sales tax revenues from the city’s premier shopping district, ruins its beautiful premier boulevard, causes an exodus of office tenants, and kills the goose just when the city budget most needs its golden eggs.
Empty busses to nowhere! Whatever, certainly not a good way to spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
There should be a hippocratic oath for public servants too: “First, do no harm.”
Put the damned trees back!
J.W. “Jay” Wall III is a commercial real estate broker, specializing in tenant representation.
Over the years, I have been active in many local conservative causes; however, for the last ten years, the fight against rail on Richmond Avenue has garnered the majority of my attention. I was surprised by Congressman Ted Poe’s involvement in this fight because Metro has all but abandoned the idea of Richmond rail. Since the idea of Richmond rail has arisen from the dead, I thought that it would be helpful to provide history and context for voters – because they have already decided this issue.
Referendums
In 2003, voters did not approve Richmond rail because the ballot language did not include Richmond Avenue. Even though the voters did not approve rail on Richmond, a group of mass transit zealots and former Metro CEO Frank Wilson, a man clouded by successive scandals, decided to move the proposed rail from Westpark to Richmond.
In 2012, voters were given the opportunity to speak again on the light rail issue. Voters overwhelmingly voted to maintain the general mobility payments to the member cities and Harris County by 78.8{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}. This result meant that voters did not want Metro spending the general mobility funds on additional light rail lines. For decades, these payments have been used for road maintenance. As any Harris County driver knows, we have an unlimited number of potholes that demand repair. Some, if not all, of the member cities of Metro have become very dependent on this money and some use the money entirely for road improvements, maintenance, and storm drain repairs. As member cities, Metro subsidizes budgets in Bellaire, Memorial Villages, West University, Southside Place, Katy, and Missouri City. Missouri City residents, for example, pay no property taxes due to these disbursements. Another member city, the City of Houston, received 90 million dollars this year in general mobility payments. In 2012, mass transit fans thought they could usurp the general mobility payments for light rail and they were wrong. Score one for the good guys.
Metro
In 2010, immediately upon taking office, Annise Parker appointed Gilbert Garcia as Chairman of Metro. This is the smartest decision that Parker has made while serving in elective office. While Gilbert and I disagree on the value of light rail, he is an honest businessman. An investment banker by trade, Gilbert quickly realized that the cost of rail put Metro into a horrible financial situation. As an aside, the City of Houston (mayor) controls five of the nine Metro board seats with the remainder controlled by the county (Commissioner’s Court).
Richmond Rail/University Line
For years, a talented group of lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, activists, business owners, and property owners worked together to fight rail on Richmond Avenue. While the reasons for participating varied, one thing was clear – the voters did not approve rail on Richmond. Local media folks seemingly fell in line with the rail zealots and I believe that it was because Metro runs a 5 million dollar a year public relations department that includes former employees of the Chronicle and Television media outlets, Jerome Gray being the latest. The thing about rail advocates is that they want rail…in someone else’s backyard. For years, the overwhelming position of business and property owners on Richmond was that rail would destroy their business and property value. Exhibit A: Red Line.
I challenge each reader to ride the Red Line and see what you think about the idea of rail in your backyard. If the goal of rail is to move people, take cars off the road, and create business around the rail line, the existing and planned rail does nothing to accomplish these objectives. Instead, businesses cannot stay open and the Red Line is filled with homeless folks looking for air conditioning and shelter. The only cars that are taken off the road are the ones involved in accidents with the rail cars.
These armies, Metro v. Anti-Richmond Rail, have been off the battlefield for the last few years because it was clear that Metro did not have the financial stability to continue building light rail around town. My team remains ready to jump into the fight whenever necessary. There are several anti-rail warriors on constant vigil watching and waiting for an opportunity to begin an attack. Metro has disengaged, primarily because they are out of bullets – money. Also, Gilbert and the board members have their hands full with fiscal issues and the Post Oak Line. Other potential problems are looming, including cost overruns involving the existing three lines under construction and the 150 people needed to maintain the new lines. To be clear, there is no money for the University Line.
Ted Poe
So, why did Poe kick over this ant hill? There are two rumors but only the congressman knows for sure. The first theory involves the new owners of Greenway Plaza. I am not sure that I believe this because Greenway Plaza is in Congressman John Culberson’s district. Ted Poe, an experienced prosecutor and judge, is not going to pick a fight with a senior appropriations member over a constituent not in his district. A second theory is that Poe just wanted to stake a position in opposition of Culberson for fundraising purposes. This idea makes a little more sense because the rail zealots love to team up with political economic opportunists (engineers) to promote ideas that put money in their pockets. Remember Proposition One?
Future Plans
Where does all of this leave us? I have been speaking with Chairman Garcia and I share his belief that the next extension to be built will mostly likely be 90-A. This route was originally part of the 2003 referendum and will follow the existing freight rail line out Main Street en route to Missouri City, Sugar Land and Fort Bend County. Congressman Al Green, Fort Bend County, Missouri City, and others have been pushing for this line for several years. Commuters theoretically would use this line to come into the city via the Fannin Street station. Heavy rail would be utilized and another track could be placed alongside the existing freight rail down the 90-A corridor. John Culberson just might support this route for these reasons.
I am a light rail opponent so I oppose any light rail in Houston because it does not remove cars from the road and damages businesses and property rights. Basically, there are no benefits of light rail in Houston.
Heavy rail also known as commuter rail is different from light rail because of its use of a regular train configuration and is grade separated from existing streets. Bill King has long talked about the need for grade separation and the pit falls of putting light rail lines on city streets. Without grade separation, the rail competes with cars, which creates more congestion and, even worse, trains hit things more frequently when they are mixed with cars. Also, light rail uses an expensive electrical overhead power source. Light rail construction demands the roadbeds must be totally reconstructed removing existing major utilities from underneath the road.
John Culberson
From the beginning, Congressman John Culberson was involved in the rail fight. Culberson has secured 46 million dollars in federal funding for the north and southeast light rail lines, and seven million dollars for exemplary bus service. John was also instrumental in obtaining reimbursement for the Red Line, a line that was built without Federal funds. Congressman Culberson’s position on light rail and his reasoning for his position on the Richmond line is clearly articulated. The congressman placed language in the 2003 referendum that the referendum could not be altered. You now know that Metro authorities attempted to change what the voters approved.
In 2003, voters believed they were voting for heavy rail lines running along I-10, Westpark, and I-45. Bill White and Frank Wilson decided to go against the vote and altered the plan. They created a light rail system inside the loop that took no cars off the road. Moreover, they misled the public by misstating the costs: 622 million versus the real cost, 4 billion.
I do appreciate elected officials who force local bureaucrats to keep it real. This is exactly what Congressman Culberson has done. If you want to see what Culberson can do, drive down I-10 from downtown to Katy. Just as many commuters use interstate 10 than use all of Metro to put it in perspective.
Conclusion
After years of poor leadership, there is cause for optimism at Metro. With the addition of Gilbert Garcia, Metro seems to be on the right track. I hope the direction sees 90-A as the next alignment built rather than Richmond Avenue, which would be a debacle. Going forward, we need to assess our current rail situation and determine if rail actually makes sense for Houston. We must review traffic studies, business reports, and tax revenue and develop a cost-benefit analysis for the light-rail program. We are out of money at the Federal level and precious resources need to be used for road building and expansion, it is imperative we keep up with growth. Building more rail lines in the hope people will ride it is nonsense. Los Angeles built 18 billion dollars’ worth of light-rail and has the worse traffic in the world. LA neglected their road building needs and it cost them dearly.
It sickens me every time I hear the argument that we need to build rail because Houston is growing. No, we need to build roads and expand existing major corridors because the Houston area is growing. 98{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of Houstonians use public roads and less than 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} use mass transit. Let’s apply what we learned from the Red Line, which is that rail kills businesses and jobs. We currently have 3 new light-rail lines under construction and we need a fair assessment of their vitality after operations begin. We can then have a more informed debate about the need for more rail vs. road expansion. If we are going to have a very expensive transportation option, we need to make sure that it works.
It’s been a while since I attended one of the weekly Downtown Houston Pachyderm Club meetings but when I saw that Houston mayoral candidate Ben Hall was going to be the speaker, I couldn’t resist. I’ve been meaning to meet him but the one real opportunity I had was on too short of notice.
President Sofia Mafrige, Ben Hall, and TexasGOPVote.com writer Bob Price
I have to admit to being skeptical about him and his chances to defeat Mayor Parker. She has grown as a politician during her two terms, handing out large city contracts to multiple public relations firms and getting great press as a result. Hey, money is the name of the game. Do you really think that puff piece in the Wall Street Journal appeared out of thin air? If so, I’ve got ocean front property in Arizona that you might want to look at.
Plus, let’s face it: he’s a Democrat! Yikes! Right? In this era of hyper-partisanship, I’m supposed to attack anyone with a “D” behind their name or else I risk being called…a RINO! Well, since a lot of people already say that about me, let me say this: I like the guy and I liked what he had to say. He reminded me of a conservative Texas Democrat from the 80’s: focused on business growth, fiscal responsibility, future planning, and yes, giving a hand up to those that need it. I know, I know – RINO! Whatever. After meeting him and hearing what he has to say, I think he might have a real shot at ousting Mayor Parker.
First off, he has vision. Mayor Parker may be a lot of things, and most of them good, but a visionary she ain’t. Hold the fort? Yes. Toe the line? Yes. Minor improvements here and there? Yes. But visionary? No. The one thing that she did that was somewhat visionary was to try and “fix” drainage issues. Unfortunately, she did it with a huge tax and a deceptive ad campaign, both of which were targets of Mr. Hall during his comments today. Rather than using the money for shovel ready drainage projects, the money is paying the salaries of Public Works employees.
Hall’s vision is to grow Houston. In fact, he claims his campaign and the election aren’t even about Mayor Parker but about the future of the city. As he said, the greatest danger that the Titanic faced was over-confident. The captain was so confident in the ship that he failed to see the danger lurking ahead. And if you read the various puff pieces that have been written about Mayor Parker lately, it is easy to see his point. It is almost as if she has decided to ride the wave of the positive economy rather than steer around the icebergs that are staring her in the face.
Obviously the largest iceberg out there is the unfunded pensions that Mayor Parker has refused to address. Hall has a few unique ideas, including stratifying the actuarial tables into three decades and purchasing insurance to cover the farthest point, the 21-30 year range. He stated that he had already talked to insurance companies who were willing to issue policies and accept the risk. He claims that this will immediately take 33{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} off the table. I checked his website and this plan is not listed but it does sound plausible.
Hall stated that another of the problems is that the city is anti-business, noting that Mayor Parker often talks of the growth of the Houston “region” but rarely mentions the city proper. That is an excellent point – the growth in Fort Bend and unincorporated Harris County has nothing to do with the City of Houston. In fact, you could make the argument that the anti-business model that Mayor Parker has instituted has driven businesses to leave the city limits. Hall in particular noted:
300-400{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} increase in fees during her term
austerity cuts that were too deep (there’s that old fashioned Democrat)
the drainage fee that is being misappropriated
increased ticketing by HPD
He used those examples to underscore his main point: Hall stated that a Kinder Institue/Rice University study shows that 65{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the land mass in Houston is “unsustainable”. By that, he said that the cost to maintain the land is more than the revenue generated by the land. I couldn’t find that study in a quick search but will try and get clarification. One example that he used was a 100 acre plot near Hwy 288 and I-610 South that the city has to maintain infrastructure to service but has no revenue generation.
Hall wants to “transfer” those “unsustainable” properties to “sustainable” ones by offering tax incentives and tax credits to companies that are willing to invest and open businesses. Again, this is an old fashioned conservative Democrat/Republican plan that will work, as has been proven time and time again. The trick is to make the incentives/credits enough to lure businesses without breaking the bank and causing negative revenue flows.
Hall briefly mentioned METRO’s problems and wants to change the philosophy from one of using rail and bus service to “densify” areas to one of connecting areas that are already dense. Basically, use them as connectors to already existing high density areas, such as connecting the Medical Center to the Galleria to Downtown, versus the urbanists plan of using them to cram everyone into areas that they deem “best”.
On crime, Hall wants to be a mayor that doesn’t welcome criminals – his words were that he is not going to be a “hug a thug” mayor. He wants to go back to work programs, using non-violent criminals to clean up weeds, garbage, and trash instead of paying to incarcerate them in air-conditioning cells with television. There’s that old fashioned conservative Democrat again. And probably his most controversial idea – place cameras into public areas to deter crime. He claims that this will reduce crime by 70{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} and doesn’t want to do it with city funds or have big brother watching. Instead, he wants private companies and individuals to receive tax credits for installing and monitoring them. Interesting idea, I’ll have to think more about that.
So that is a recap of Mr. Hall’s speech. Like I said earlier, I was skeptical going in but very positive coming out. I especially liked his motto that he will be a mayor for all Houstonians and was proving it by reaching out to Republicans. Mayor Parker used to reach out to us but it has been a while.
As for the rest of the meeting, it was good to see the club still rolling along. New President Sofia Mafrige has been working hard to schedule informative speakers, and Alvin Walker is still promoting the group. Mafrige reported that she had recently attended the national convention of Pachyderm Clubs and the Downtown Houston group received an award for highest growth percentage during 2012. Obviously that was thanks to the work of the Kubosh brothers during their time at the helm.
A few candidates were there and I had a good conversation with candidate for Houston City Council District A Ron Hale. I’ve seen him at prior meetings but never talked in depth. After our conversation today, I think I need to do a more formal interview with him so that you can meet him. Seems like a very level headed, positive candidate in that crowded field.
Joe Ablaza also checked in, telling me that Leticia’s campaign for District I was going very well and that she was getting some great endorsements. He also gave me an update on their golf tournament, telling me that they netted over $4,000 and will be able to sponsor at least 40 children play baseball this year. That, my friends, is awesome. Great work, Joe.
If you didn’t like the vote-buying, special interest, sweetheart dealings associated with the 2010 Proposition 1 “Rain Tax” imagine how thrilled you’d be to learn that some of those same engineering and related firms, still at work preserving their taxpayer subsidies, are now contributing to the “Keep Houston Moving” PAC.
What’s the “Keep Houston Moving” PAC?
Thanks to Charles Kuffner, this is the PAC behind the recent Houston Metro general mobility payments poll. “ The poll was commissioned by Keep Houston Moving Forward PAC, a group formed to pass a ballot measure this fall that will determine the future of the mobility payments.” He wrote.
Here’s the contributions information:
[table id=6 /]
As this Houston Chronicle piece noted in February 2010, the campaign for Renew Houston “could be led by some of the very engineers who could benefit the most from the infrastructure boom a referendum would initiate.”
And so it is for Houston METRO through the Keep Houston Moving PAC as well….