Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

February 13th, 2013:

Gambling has always polled well

In addition to their self-reported efforts to work together, the pro-gambling expansion forces have released a poll showing public sentiment on their side.

A poll paid for by Let Texans Decide, a pro-gambling group made up of interests that wanted slot machines at racetracks last session, asked 1,001 registered voters in Texas: “Regardless of your views on gambling, would you support or oppose allowing Texas voters to decide on a constitutional amendment to allow the expansion of gaming in Texas?”

The answer was a loud “yes.”

Of all respondents, 82 percent said they’d support being able to vote on a constitutional amendment to allow gambling, and 78 percent of Republican primary voters — the folks that, let’s face it, decide our statewide elections — also supported the idea of putting gambling to a public vote, according to poll results.

[…]

The poll was conducted by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research, the same firm that did the surveys for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz during his run for the Senate last year.

Respondents were contacted by phone between Jan. 27 and Jan. 30. The margin of error is ±3.1 percent, with an oversample sufficient to achieve 511 Republican primary voters with a margin of error +4.4 percent.

You can see the poll memo here, and crosstabs can be found here. There are two points to note. One is that asking people whether they favor voting on something is not the same as asking them if they favor the thing they’d be voting on. I suspect most propositions would get a favorable response to the question “should the people be allowed to vote on this”. Two, previous polls on the subject have generally shown a positive response from Texans towards expanded gambling. This 2009 Baselice poll found that 63% of respondents favored allowing slot machines at horse and dog racetracks, with 82% being in favor of being allowed to vote on the question. This 2010 Texans for Economic Development poll found that people preferred slot machines at racetracks as a way to raise revenue by a 57-22 margin over increasing taxes. None of that has made any difference in the Legislature in the past, and the safe bet is that this poll won’t make any difference, either. But there you have it anyway. Hair Balls has more.

Repealing the Texas double secret illegal anti-gay marriage amendment

Some things you do because they’re the right thing to do.

On the right side of history

Reps. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, and Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, are seeking to reverse the state’s prohibition against gay marriage or same-sex civil unions.

Their proposed constitutional amendments — HJR 77 and HJR 78 – would repeal a 2005 amendment passed by Texas voters that bans recognition of same-sex unions.

Coleman cited recent polls that show sentiments have changed for a majority of Texans. “Two-thirds of Texas’ voters now believe the state should allow some form of legal recognition for committed same-gender couples,” he said.

Anchia said he represents many couples and families who are discriminated against by the state’s Defense of Marriage Act.

“It is time we revisit this issue; it is time we treat all Texans with dignity and respect,” Anchia said.

The representatives are taking particular aim at a provision of the act that would deny gay couples any civil or legal benefits reserved to husbands and wives. A statewide poll from last year showed that only 25 percent of Texans believe that same-gender couples should neither be allowed to marry or enter int a civil union.

There’s also SJR 29, filed by Sen. Jose Rodriguez in the Senate on Friday, and SB 480 by Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, which would serve as enabling legislation for these resolutions if their accompanying amendments were adopted. See here for more.

Back to the Trail Blazers story, the poll cited is this UT/Texas Trib poll from October that showed approval of marriage equality with a plurality of 36%, and approval of civil unions at 33%; only 25% disapproved of both. Those are encouraging numbers, but I don’t see that translating into legislative action any time soon, especially since it will take a Constitutional amendment, which requires two-thirds support from the Lege to get passed. Maybe someday, but not when Republican legislators and other assorted officeholders are urging the Boy Scouts to keep banning gays because gayness is icky and immoral. We’re getting to the point where more and more people have realized that supporting equality is the truly moral thing to do, but we’ve still got a long way to go in Texas, and I don’t think we’ll get there – more specifically, I don’t think two-thirds of the Legislature will get there – before the Supreme Court does. I applaud Sens. Rodriguez and Hinojosa and Reps. Anchia and Coleman, who has done this every session since 2005, for their action, and I certainly urge everyone to call their Rep and Senator and ask them to support these joint resolutions, I’m just saying it’s too early to get one’s hopes up. Equality Texas has more.

UPDATE: The Dallas Voice has more.

North Forest ISD fighting closure

This was to be expected.

About 60 attended a meeting Saturday in response to TEA Commissioner of Education Michael Williams’ recommendation on Thursday to dissolve NFISD due to poor academic performance and low high school completion rates, among other issues.

Leaders of the 6,900-student northeast Houston district said they will fight the decision all the way to the U.S. Department of Justice. District leaders have until Feb. 17 to request a record review be reopened and ask the State Office of Administrative Hearings for an appeal.

If TEA Chief Deputy Lizzette Gonzalez-Reynolds approves Williams’ recommendation, the Department of Justice must pre-clear the merger with HISD.

“We’re going to have another conversation, and we’re anticipating we will get another opportunity to build on the good work we did this year,” said North Forest Superintendent Edna Forte.

She suggested that the district pursue partnerships with other education institutions, including charters schools, and seek out additional support through federal Race to the Top money or by the creation of a local endowment.

See here and here for the background. I can’t blame anyone for fighting, and I understand the concern about being subsumed into HISD, but it’s not really clear to me what’s being fought for here. NFISD has been troubled going back almost 30 years. They were given one last reprieve last year but still have no progress to show on the state accountability metrics. Closing a school district is controversial in part because no one really knows how effective that step is, but how much worse could the alternatives be? How likely is it that one more chance will yield a better outcome? On the flip side, how big a challenge is this for HISD, and what is the downside for them? Lots of questions, and I’m not sure how many of the answers are good. Lisa Falkenberg, who’s on a similar wavelength, has more.

Alexan Heights update

The developers of the Alexan Heights project on Yale will go before the Planning Commission tomorrow to get a variance that would remove a single-family restriction on part of the property. Some folks in the neighborhood have been petitioning against the variance. The Leader reports from a meeting that was supposed to be between residents and the developer, except that the developer didn’t show.

Plans submitted by Terra Associates, affiliated with several luxury Alexan apartments throughout the Houston area, show a 350-plus unit complex with 4 stories of apartment units over two levels of parking, one of which is below grade. Currently a mixed-use block in the Maple Heights subdivision, the 3.5-acre site fronts Yale between 6th and 7th, with Allston Street its interior border and the Heights Hike-and-Bike Trail to its north.

Last week, Houston Planning Commission deferred its decision on whether to grant a variance request to replat as unrestricted reserved a single-family portion of the site. Since it has twice-deferred the variance request, however, the planning commission must make a decision at its next meeting, with or without the traffic study reportedly being conducted by the developer and expected in mid-February.

Whether passed or denied, however, a version of the project is likely to advance in some form, said Bill Pellerin, land use committee chairman, who also said neither the committee nor the association has taken a position on the proposed project.

Residents, however, were outspoken on the project’s potential impact on traffic in an already-bottlenecked stretch of roadway, on access and flow, on setbacks, on sidewalks, on drainage and on the overall presence of a mid-rise building abutting an otherwise single-family neighborhood.

“The variance is the project,” one attendee said, calling for residents to give the planning commission “reasons to deny it” and to remind commissioners as well as council members that seeking a variance means something is not in compliance. “Stick to the rules,” said another resident.

The West Heights Coalition is leading the resistance, with assistance from RUDH. I have sympathy for the WHC, but I have a hard time seeing how the Planning Commission denies the variance. There’s a similar high-end apartment complex about a mile north, at 2125 Yale, and between 6th and I-10 Yale is basically all industrial. Yale is a thoroughfare in the way that Bissonnet where the Ashby Highrise will be isn’t. It’s true that the traffic is awful right there, but as far as I can tell that’s because of the traffic light that went in after the I-10 service road was extended west of Yale. You could probably mitigate some of this traffic by building a dedicated right-turn lane for the service road, which is something I know was talked about as mitigation for the Wal-Mart construction. Anyone know whatever happened with that? Tweaking the timing on that light to give a longer green and a shorter red for Yale would also help some. I certainly agree that between this, the Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart-related development, and whatever is to come on the San Jacinto Stone site, Yale is going to become an unholy mess to drive on. But given all that, it’s hard to see how this one project will make that much difference.