Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Chicago

We could be #3!

In a decade or so! If current trends hold.

Chicago, the only city among the nation’s 20 largest to see population loss in 2015, could be overtaken in a decade by Houston as the third-most-populous city if the trend continues, experts said.

The city of Chicago lost about 2,890 residents between 2014 and 2015, bringing the city’s population down to 2,720,546, according to newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Numbers made available in March showed the greater Chicago area, which includes the city and suburbs and extends into Wisconsin and Indiana, lost an estimated 6,263 residents — the greatest loss of any metropolitan area in the country.

[…]

The nation’s fourth-most-populated city, Houston, saw the second-largest increase among major cities, gaining 40,032 residents between 2014 and 2015. While Houston’s population, about 2.3 million, is still about 424,000 residents behind Chicago, experts say that if the trends continue, Houston could eclipse Chicago’s population in about 10 years.

“That’s the trend,” said Rob Paral, a Chicago-based demographer. “Even if Chicago stays fairly steady for a period, Houston would pass us up in about 10 years. It’s not inconceivable.”

But William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution who analyzes census data, said such 10-year projections are “crystal ball kinds of predictions,” as they cannot account for economic shifts. While Texas’ economy is thriving as a result of the oil and gas industries right now, there have been periods of volatility, he said.

The same could be said for Chicago, as it’s only the first year in several that the city’s population has dropped.

“It’s certainly possible,” Frey said, when asked about the likelihood of Houston becoming the country’s third-largest city. “If you project those (populations) out, then it’ll be close to 10 years before there’s a convergence. But that’s not likely to be the case.”

I would have to agree that projecting this out ten years is a dicey proposition. Chicago’s population loss is a recent thing, and as Houston Tomorrow reminds us, it wasn’t long ago that the city of Houston’s share in the region’s growth was much smaller. Things could look very different in a few years’ time, is what I’m saying. Be that as it may, it’s kind of amusing watching Chicago freak out a little about this. May as well enjoy it while we can. The Urban Edge blog has more.

Black Lives Matter takes an interest in the Harris County DA race

This will be worth watching.

Inspired by voters in Chicago and Cleveland who booted top prosecutors last week with candidates who pledged more accountability in police shootings, Houston-area Black Lives Matter activists have started a #ByeDevon social media campaign to try to oust Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson.

#ByeDevon, which appears to have debuted on Twitter last week, was shared and retweeted by individuals involved in local Black Lives Matter efforts as well as people who questioned the handling of the Sandra Bland incident and Houston-area members of the National Black United Front.

Anderson has drawn criticism for her handling of police shooting cases and for the lack of indictments against police officers who injure civilians. And activists have demanded an apology from Anderson for comments she made the morning after Harris County Deputy Darren Goforth was killed last year.

Anderson won the Republican primary earlier this month and is facing a rematch with Democratic challenger Kim Ogg in November.

[…]

Ogg said she welcomed the support.

“I’m glad they’re doing it,” she said. “I want them to be involved and we’ve seen that the public – at least in Chicago and Cleveland – recognized that it’s the district attorney’s responsibility to ensure that corrupt police or overly aggressive police or lying police are brought to justice and are held accountable to the public. I think it’s positive that young people are trying to raise their own community’s awareness and I think this is bigger than the African American community. I think the #ByeDevon hashtag could be the beginning of a movement for reform in the criminal justice system.”

[…]

[Black Lives Matter activist Jerry] Ford contends that Ogg would be better able to “close the communication gap between communities of color and law enforcement” and could “mobilize young people and people of color on the Democratic side to come out to vote.”

“We are going to mimic the strategy that took place up in Chicago,” Ford said, noting that #ByeDevon is patterned after the #ByeAnita social media effort to unseat Cook County prosecutor Anita Alvarez in Chicago. “I’m reaching out to activists around the country about the best way to move forward with this so we can be a success in November.”

Here’s the view on Twitter. Looks like the first use of the hashtag for this purpose was March 16. A subsequent post notes that ByeDevon.com has been acquired, so look for that at some point. This is modeled on the #ByeAnita hashtag used by Chicago activists in ousting the State’s Attorney who had not acted in the Laquan Edwards shooting.

That was a primary, and this is a general election, but the idea is the same – to engage and turn out people who care about the issues involved. This is a Presidential year so the turnout issue is different than it would be otherwise, but there is unquestionably room for growth. We’ve been a 50-50 county in the last two cycles; a few thousand votes here or there could make a huge difference. And the audience for this activism is primarily younger voters, always a good thing for Dems. I’ll be keeping an eye on this. Thanks to Houston Legal for the link.

UPDATE: More from Texas Monthly.

We’re (about to be) Number 3!

In population. By the year 2025. Suck it, Chicago!

HoustonSeal

Hidden in the haze of the petrochemical plants and beyond the seemingly endless traffic jams, a Texas city has grown so large that it is poised to pass Chicago as the third biggest in the United States in the next decade.

Houston has been one of the fastest-growing U.S. cities for years, fueled by an energy industry that provided the backbone of the economy, low taxes and prospects of employment that have attracted job seekers.

But Houston also embodies the new, urban Texas, where political views have been drifting to the left, diversity is being embraced and newer residents are just as likely to drive a hybrid as a pickup truck.

Houston’s move is also indicative of demographic shifts unfolding in the United States that will increase the population and political clout of the Lone Star State over the next several decades.

Within eight to 10 years, Houston is forecast by demographers in the two states to pass Chicago, which has seen its population decline for years, as the third-largest city.

Houston is projected to have population of 2.54 million to 2.7 million by 2025 while Chicago will be at 2.5 million, according to official data from both states provided for their health departments. New York and Los Angeles are safe at one and two respectively.

Houston has long been associated with the risk takers in the oil industry and more recently as one of the better cities to find a job.

“Texas has a long tradition, and Houston has it in spades, that we are not so much interested in where you are from. We want to know what you can do,” Houston Mayor Annise Parker said in an interview with Reuters.

Chicago officials were not immediately available for comment.

And indeed, what could they say? Jokes aside, I confess to being a little wary of this projection when I first looked at it, but given that the city’s population has grown almost as much in the 2010-2014 period as it did between 2000 and 2010, I can see how we might get there. Our growth hasn’t always been even – far from it – and it’s demonstrably less in bad economic times (like the oil bust days in the 80s), so this is hardly a guarantee. But while the eventual date might not be set, the trend seems clear. Yay for us!

A lot of the story has the annoying tone of someone who’s never set foot in the state, much less Houston itself, but we’re all used to that by now. It also contains a cautionary note:

On social issues, residents in one of the most racially diverse U.S. cities are seen as “tolerant traditionalists” who espouse conservative values and open minds when it comes to social issues, according to a poll from the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Houston’s Rice University.

Residents generally have a positive view of immigrants, favor same-sex marriage and are more progressive than the state’s socially conservative Republican leadership, it said.

Pending the outcome of the HERO referendum, of course. Remember all that positive press Houston got in 2009, not just nationally but globally, when Annise Parker was elected? Sure, a lot of it was based on the same blissfully provincial ignorance about Houston – who could have possibly thought that an OIL TOWN in a backwards hellhole like Texas could elect a GAY MAYOR?!? – but for all that it was positive, and made some people reassess their view of our fair city. What kind of a reaction do you think we’ll get it we repeal an equal rights ordinance? I for one would rather not find out. The Press and Texas Leftist have more.

More on the partisan lines of the Uber fight

From Wonkblog, another interesting look at how the fight over the so-called “sharing economy”, in particular transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft, is playing out nationally.

In its short life, however, the sharing economy has seldom reflected a clear schism between Republicans and Democrats — an argument Grover Norquist tries to make today in a provocative opinion piece for Reuters. Companies like Uber, he writes with Patrick Gleason, can help the GOP “gain control” of cities where they’ve been all but absent for years. Their logic:

Yet despite the Democrats’ urban dominance, cities may soon be up for grabs. For the party’s refusal to embrace the innovative technology and disruptive businesses that have greatly improved city life presents a challenge to Democrats — and an opportunity for Republicans.

Democrats are facing a tough choice. A big part of their base is the unions now facing off against such disruptive innovations as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and charter schools. Do Democrats support the regulations pushed by taxi and other unions that help to protect the status quo but can also stifle competition? Or do they embrace innovative technologies and businesses that expand transportation options, create jobs and are increasingly welcomed by another key Democratic constituency: urban dwellers, particularly young urban dwellers?

Norquist and Gleason are right that there will no doubt be political fallout from the sharing economy. I recently met a number of cab drivers in Chicago who pledged to me that they would fight against the reelection of Mayor Rahm Emanuel because of his support for services like Uber and Lyft there. But it’s not at all clear that this fallout will favor Republicans.

[…]

The point here isn’t that Democrats are all supporters of the sharing economy. It’s that support isn’t as contingent on ideology as Norquist and Gleason suggest. And the political lines are definitely not so tidy as to suggest that Republicans can leverage liberals’ “refusal to embrace the innovative technology” to sweep back into favor with urban voters. There’s room here for Democrats to acknowledge that markets can partly regulate themselves — with the help of technology — in ways that weren’t possible in the past; there’s room for Republicans to acknowledge that we need laws mandating commercial auto insurance anyway.

We’ve heard a lot from Democrats on these issues precisely because they’re playing out in cities so far. And, inevitably, elected Democrats like Rahm Emanuel will be forced to take positions that will please some core constituents at the expense of others. The tension between unions and young consumers is particularly compelling. Republicans should absolutely jump into that fray. They haven’t found a lot of reasons to talk to urban voters lately — if people like Norquist think this is one, that’s great.

But the fact that this debate isn’t neatly drawn into liberal and conservative camps is a testament to the policy issues raised by the sharing economy: They’re incredibly, incredibly messy. They also aren’t purely about big-picture ideological battles over less regulation or more union power, the kind of divisive themes that animate federal policy debates. They’re about the gritty details of auto insurance policies and tax receipts and access for disabled consumers. That’s not the stuff of pithy partisan slogans.

As author Emily Badger notes, this issue has not played out along partisan lines so far. Uber and Lyft have made their way into cities like San Francisco and Seattle working with the local governments there. Trying to make this into an R-versus-D fight will surely be a loser at least in the short term precisely because cities are overwhelmingly Democratic right now. Uber and Lyft can’t get approved in Houston without at least two Democrats supporting it, and indeed can’t even come up for a vote without Mayor Parker putting it on the agenda.

Of course, Norquist is playing a long game, and a few losses up front aren’t a setback to him but a catalyst. I still have a hard time buying this as a wedge issue. Norquist envisions a future army of disillusioned Uber (and Lyft and AirBnB and whatever other sharing economy companies are out there trying to gain a foothold) users turning to his brand of small-government deregulators as the saviors of their smartphone apps. But most people who live in cities like having a certain level of service and infrastructure, and they accept that there’s a higher level of taxes to provide for that. It’s not exactly a coincidence that cities tend to be Democratic, after all. If what you really want is lower taxes and you don’t care so much for things like sewer systems and professional fire departments, well, that’s what the suburbs and unincorporated areas are for. It’s not like these are hard to find or move to in most metro areas.

Again, though, this is a long game. Norquist is hoping to bring younger people – those who are way more likely to be Uber users in the first place – to a more generalized preference of deregulation and less government. I like to think that the millennial crowd already has a clear view of what he’s trying to sell them, but let’s all admit that predicting what politics will look like in 20 or 30 years is considerably sillier than trying to predict what it will look like in 2 or 3 years, or even 2 or 3 months. One reason for that is because nobody knows what society will look like in 20 or 30 years. Uber thinks driverless cars will eventually replace their human chauffeurs. Some other people think driverless cars will be the end of Uber and its ilk. Who knows? Maybe society won’t accept driverless cars and unions like SEIU make a push to organize Uber drivers. Anything can happen, but that doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.

Here comes the Uber and Lyft vote

Barring anything unexpected, today is the day that Houston City Council settles – for now, anyway – the Uber/Lyft issue. Houston is not the only place where transportation network companies are seeking to do business in Texas, of course. The Trib takes a look at the state of play around Texas.

“As the current city of Austin code is written, you still have to be a permitted ground transportation service to operate in the city of Austin,” said Samantha Alexander, a spokeswoman with the city of Austin’s Transportation Department. “As of right now, they are not permitted.”

Lyft and Uber drivers in Austin are at risk for a Class C misdemeanor ticket and possibly having their car impounded, Alexander said. She noted that in some cases, Austin police have ticketed Uber or Lyft drivers who were unaware that they were in violation of any city rules.

“Our big message right now is to make sure people aren’t breaking the law accidentally,” Alexander said.

Drivers have also been ticketed in Houston and San Antonio. In Corpus Christi, a 30-day grace period for Lyft and Uber drivers ends Tuesday, according to a recent statement from Corpus Christi Police Chief Floyd Simpson.

“There will be a dedicated enforcement effort following with intent to persuade compliance and ensure public safety,” Simpson said last month in an editorial for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Police officials did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

[…]

Texas cities are at varying stages of re-evaluating city regulations overseeing vehicle-for-hire services to see if there’s a way to allow the popular services to co-exist with traditional taxi services. In some cases, the debates have been hotly contested.

“Cities are recognizing they have to change, and that it’s a great thing if people have more options,” said Joseph Kopser, CEO of Austin-based RideScout, an app that provides real-time information about transportation services in different cities.

In Dallas, city officials drew howls of outrage last year after an interim city manager defied the usual protocol and placed an item on the City Council agenda without prior council discussion that would have effectively shut down Uber’s efforts in the city. The item was never approved and drew a city investigation.

In recent months, Dallas officials have been working with various stakeholders, including Uber and Lyft, to update their regulations. Next week, Councilwoman Sandy Greyson is planning to propose a new vehicle-for-hire regulation system that removes the current cap on taxi and limo licenses and allows companies to charge whatever fares they want. TNCs would have to abide by some new regulations, including paying for permits.

“What we’ve done is pretty much scrap all our current regulations and come up with an entirely new model where we will regulate all vehicle-for-hire providers the same way,” Greyson said. “This is a free-market proposal.”

[…]

Along with questions about safety and fees, equity issues are also drawing debate, such as whether companies like Uber and Lyft should be required to provide reliable taxi service to a city’s disabled residents. In many Texas cities, the city code requires traditional taxi fleets to include some wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Last week, a group of disabled people, including two in Houston and one in San Antonio, sued Uber and Lyft for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Greyson, the Dallas councilwoman, said her proposal will require that a certain portion of a provider’s fleet be handicap accessible.

Chris Nakutis, an Uber general manager who oversees its Texas market, said the company partners with a wheelchair-accessible taxi service in Chicago. He did not rule out the company partnering with such services in Texas, but he took issue with the idea that the company should be required to in every market.

“We don’t own any vehicles. We don’t hire any drivers,” Nakutis said. “To the extent that there are wheelchair-accessible vehicles, we partner with them. Even if we don’t have wheelchair-accessible vehicles in a community, those people have the exact same opportunities they had before we entered the market.”

In addition to all that, Sidecar is coming to Texas later this year as well, and Uber is looking for drivers in Amarillo, El Paso, Lubbock and Waco. So expect the stories we’ve heard before to repeat themselves elsewhere. Meanwhile, in Austin, there’s a stakeholder meeting to kick the discussion off there. One way or another, things are happening and I have to figure a year from now the landscape will look very different.

I had not heard about that ADA-related lawsuit before reading this story. A Google News search shows that it’s gotten exactly zero mainstream media coverage. Taxi companies filed a lawsuit in April over the newcomers’ business practices, but this is an entirely different issue. The negotiations in Houston have included a possible requirement for Uber and Lyft to have some percentage of their drivers be able to accommodate disabled riders. I’m very interested to see how this shakes out.

But today is for Houston. As I’ve said before, I don’t have a good feel for who stands where on this, and at this point we don’t know what exactly the final ordinance will look like. Yesterday was the usual Tuesday pop-off session at Council, so it was the last chance before today’s vote for people to give their feedback on the proposals. Lauren Barrash, the founder and CEO of The Wave and a vocal critic of Uber and Lyft, sent me a copy of what she said to Council:

Good afternoon. In preparation for today’s public comment I wanted to shed light on a few new concerns I have regarding the vote tomorrow to pass the new Chapter 46.

First- Last week the limousine stakeholders were not notified that the ordinance was on the agenda which is why they did not have a presence at City Hall for public comment. They were also not aware of the amendments we all found out about from the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday morning.

Second- We were all emailed a new draft ordinance on Friday, June 6th. In speaking with some of the Council staff, that was not sent to you all.

Third- I have been trying, with no avail, to add some jitney revisions, but have been told, “we will have to get to after this one passes”. As a law abiding tax paying stakeholder, my concerns and recommendations should be weighted as heavily as these illegal operators forcing us to rush through this process

Last & most important- I want you to ask the question to them today if they are willing to stand before you & say with all honesty, they will comply 100% with all requirements in the new Chapter 46 Ordinance no later than the date required. And if not, you need to consider harsh consequences- impoundment, criminal charges, tickets, insurance notification because they have already displayed their lack of concern if tickets are issued. And if they say they will comply, you need to make certain you have the ability to enforce those laws. You also need to ensure there are harsh consequences for violation of the ordinance & be able to enforce those.

I have several questions regarding certain line items both in the section pertaining to jitneys as well as some of the Ordinance applicable to all of us, but am not being heard and am not able to ask those questions to ARA because they are busy accommodating the likes of Uber & Lyft.

Nothing in life is free. Free enterprise is not about not having to pay to be in business. It is about an open market for business to come in & operate legally. The media is hearing one side of this, but I sincerely hope you all have heard all three sides. It is hard to hear the real message hear when you have a shiny marketing, PR, and outreach plan from an $18 Billion company.

I ask that you think if it were your business at stake, would you want them to be a stakeholder. Equate it to someone like Chili’s, who has TONS of money, coming into a market & opening hundreds of restaurants on every prime piece of real estate, but not getting permits, inspections, plans. You wouldn’t let that happen.

I’m not sure how well that analogy holds up once an ordinance is passed, but I can certainly appreciate the frustration in the interim, once the newcomers went rogue. The Chron notes this while urging passage of an overhaul to the vehicle for hire code.

Mandatory prices, minimum fleet sizes and required advanced reservations serve little public good, and have no place in laws regulating Town Cars and other vehicles-for-hire.

But then the lobbyists got involved. Over the past several months, policy has turned to personal politics, and what should have been an easy vote has become a municipal mud fight. Instead of discussing regulations, council members are talking about individual companies.

Do you support Yellow Cab? Do you support Uber, a car service software company that connects riders with drivers? What about other newcomers like Lyft or Sidecar?

Council members should leave that choice to consumers. City Hall’s job is to write policy that achieves goals of safety, predictability and healthy economics. Right now, Chapter 46, which covers vehicles-for-hire, fails to meet those ends.

Frankly, Uber’s antics have worn thin. The $18.2 billion company’s gleeful noncompliance with laws across the nation has begun to smack less of civil disobedience and more of corporate privilege run amok. We’re witnessing the values of a Silicon Valley where men think they’re kings because they learned how to code.

It is hubris matched only by Houston’s current taxi monopoly, which acts as if it is entitled to exist without competition and thinks itself a saint because it accepts Metro vouchers to pick up the handicapped – a rather profitable form of charity.

Instead of duking it out in City Hall, these companies should take their fight to the people.

I suspect they will get that chance. And I will say again, it would be a good idea to review what gets done today in another six or twelve months, since no one really knows what the effect of the changes will be.

Finally, the Times notes that cab drivers are beginning to think more broadly about how to respond.

As services like UberX, whose drivers often use their own vehicles to transport passengers, make inroads in city after city, traditional taxi drivers are facing a loss of clout and livelihood. Years of rising gas prices and, in many places, stagnant fares have contributed to lower incomes for many drivers.

Eager to reverse the trend, taxi drivers in Chicago and other cities are for the first time seeking to form a national taxi drivers’ union — not just to gain leverage against UberX but also to pressure city officials and taxi companies to heed their concerns. The powerful taxi drivers’ union in New York City, with 17,000 members, is spearheading this effort, bringing its organizing expertise to Chicago, where it is pushing to unionize thousands of drivers and to link up with drivers’ unions in Philadelphia, Miami, Houston, northern Maryland and Austin, Tex.

Here and elsewhere, drivers express similar grievances: low pay, high leasing fees, police who issue too many tickets and taxi companies that cheat them. Despite those common problems, forming a national union will be difficult, in part, because taxi drivers are an independent, disputatious group with roots in dozens of countries.

[…]

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. supports the idea of a national taxi drivers’ union as part of its broader strategy to reverse decades of decline in union membership and power. Labor groups are realizing that they can no longer afford to ignore sectors like the taxi industry that employ many immigrant workers, whom unions view as a vital source of potential membership growth. And taxi drivers, whether Ethiopian, Haitian or Pakistani, are often leaders in immigrant communities around the country.

One snag these unionization plans face is that taxi drivers are usually independent contractors who are barred by antitrust law from colluding to set prices (although they can lobby city officials to grant fare increases).

Drivers say that some organizing efforts have been paying off. For instance the 1,200-member drivers’ union in Philadelphia helped secure three fare increases, lower fines for violations like having bald tires and a reduction in the fee for accepting credit card payments to 5 percent of the fare, from 10 percent.

Ronald Blount, president of the Philadelphia union, sees benefits in going national. “We can learn from each other. We can see what forms of pressure worked in other cities,” he said.

Probably too late to have any effect in Houston, but we’ll see how it goes elsewhere.

Two cities, one argument about airports

Turns out Houston isn’t the only city squabbling with United Airlines about airport expansions. There’s a similar fight going on in Chicago.

O'Hare International Airport

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has gotten tough with the teachers union and muscled the City Council. But will he mess with somebody his own size?

Mr. Emanuel is at odds with airline boss Jeff Smisek over expansion of O’Hare International Airport. The CEO of United Continental Holdings Inc. jabbed at Mr. Emanuel recently, saying there’s no need to finish the multibillion-dollar project launched seven years ago.

The new mayor shot back with a demand to start talks now on the final phase of the expansion. The deadline for starting those negotiations isn’t until next March.

[…]

Mr. Emanuel can’t afford to let O’Hare fall behind rival airports. Mr. Smisek, on the other hand, has a different agenda. Unlike airline execs of the past, whose expansionist strategies dovetailed with the city’s desire for an ever-bigger O’Hare, he’s focused on the bottom line. He aims to boost profits by reducing capacity and competition in the airline industry, which has a long history of big spending, bloody fare wars and monumental losses. His merger of Houston-based Continental Airlines Inc. and Chicago’s UAL Corp. advanced those aims while creating an airline with unprecedented market power, the largest in the industry.

Proceeding with the final phase of the O’Hare expansion would undercut Mr. Smisek’s agenda, adding capacity that could allow new airlines into the airport, where United and AMR Corp.’s American Airlines now control 80 percent of the flights. Their stranglehold makes it hard for newcomers to get into O’Hare and maybe offer lower fares. It also means that United and American pay most of the cost of any expansion projects at O’Hare, giving them clout in construction negotiations.

The terms of the debate are different in Chicago, but the bottom line is the same. What’s best for the city may not be best for United Airlines, and vice versa. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about a large company with near-monopoly control in a given market doing whatever it can to keep competition out. What is remarkable is that the argument to allow such competition would somehow be damaging to consumers is given any credibility.

Which brings me to Tuesday’s Council session, in which United and Southwest made their case before a joint meeting of the Budget & Fiscal Affairs and Transportation, Technology & Infrastructure committees.

CEO Gary Kelly spoke for Southwest. He framed the debate in his company’s David-and-Goliath narrative of the scrappy low-cost carrier trying to crack a market dominated by the big boys.

Kelly opened with, “It is déjà vu.” Southwest had to fight just to keep from being killed in its crib by legacy carriers that schemed and litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the airline from starting up, by Kelly’s version of history.

“That group included Continental Airlines,” Kelly said, the hometown carrier that merged with United in 2010. “It was a cynical move.”

In 1971, Southwest sought to reopen Hobby, which had closed two years earlier when Houston Intercontinental Airport opened.

“Then, as now, the legacy carriers went ballistic,” Kelly said, “… insisting that reopening Hobby would cause irreparable damage to Intercontinental.”

[…]

[United] delivered PowerPoint slides with statistics on how over the past 19 years Southwest has increased its fares at a faster rate than the legacy carriers have and juxtaposed the city’s projection of a Houston-Bogota flight for $133 on Southwest with the airline’s recent advertised rate of $160 just to get from Chicago to Oklahoma City.

John Gebo, United’s senior vice president of financial planning, even contested Southwest’s central contention that its entry into Houston’s international travel market will lower fares:

“There are cases where Southwest’s fares are lower. There are cases where they’re higher. It is a fallacy that Southwest’s fares are always lower.”

They also focused on the future instead of history. A council vote to expand Hobby, they said, would prompt them to reconsider a $700 million investment they have planned at Bush’s Terminal B. United broke ground on the project in January, unaware that later that same day Kelly would be meeting with Mayor Annise Parker to discuss Hobby expansion.

Let me refer you back to the two posts in which my wife Tiffany Tyler analyzed Southwest’s proposal and the claims United was making at the time, which seem to have evolved somewhat. I understand United’s fear of this proposal. I understand their threats regarding Terminal B at IAH, though given the growth projections for IAH and the fact that they want to close down the former Continental hub in Cleveland it’s hard for me to take those threats too seriously – where else are they going to go? Unlike Southwest, which says it will go to San Antonio for their Latin American and Caribbean business if Hobby is not available to them, they’re pretty much locked in. What I don’t understand is how having more competition, even if it’s just for a handful of Latin American routes, can be bad for travelers. It makes no sense to me, and according to his press release it makes no sense to CM Andrew Burks, either. I hope in the end it makes no sense to the rest of Council.