CM Mary Nan Huffman
I had not planned to do an interview for District G this cycle – I only have so much time and capacity, and as of the July reporting deadline, incumbent CM Mary Nan Huffman did not have an opponent. And then tank owner and Paxton defender Tony Buzbee declared his candidacy, and that made me want to get to know the incumbent better. Huffman won a special election in January 2022 to replace Greg Travis, who stepped down for an unsuccessful run for the Legislature; I need to double-check, but I believe this means that CM Huffman could run again in 2027 if she wins this November. Huffman is a former Montgomery County prosecutor who serves as an attorney for the Houston Police Officers Union, and she was the Republican candidate for Harris County District Attorney in 2020. Like many Houstonians, she and her family were flooded out by Hurricane Harvey. Here’s the interview:
PREVIOUSLY:
Kathy Blueford-Daniels
Dani Hernandez
Judith Cruz
Plácido Gómez
Mario Castillo
Cynthia Reyes-Revilla
Joaquin Martinez
Tarsha Jackson
Leah Wolfthal
Melanie Miles
Abbie Kamin
Sallie Alcorn
Letitia Plummer
Nick Hellyar
Obes Nwabara
Danielle Bess
Holly Vilaseca
Marina Coryat
Donnell Cooper
Twila Carter
Casey Curry
James Joseph
This week was mostly about At Large #3. Next week we will get into a couple of propositions and other things (and there will be one more At Large #3 interview) before we move on to Controller and Mayor. The Erik Manning spreadsheet is here. My previous posts about the 2023 HISD election are here and here. My posts about the July campaign finance reports for City Council candidates are here and here.
Huffman voted to spend $500,000 on lawyers who are paid to active do nothing and drag on legal battles with fire fighters
David, the lawyers wouldn’t be necessary if the firefighters were reasonable and the firefighter union wasn’t run by rent seeking bastards trying to screw Houston taxpayers.
Ross, I’m open to hearing the facts you have to support your attitude.
But. Here’s some light reading:
Following up from the first day of the CBA Process under TLGC 174 with the City of Houston on September 13th, 2023. During our court hearing yesterday we advised the court the city has refused to agree to any future bargaining dates for the FY23 and FY24 Fiscal years until October 23rd, 2023. (Which is the first day of early voting, I’m sure everyone would be busy at that time)
We have advised and sent the city our availability for every week in September and every week in October. No Surprise, the city has not agreed or responded thus far.
During our first meeting on September 13th, 2023, the city claimed they had NO financial data ready and it would take “some time” for finance to put together something to present.
Soooooo, sounds like the $500 000 lawyers showed up to court and literally told the court they were unprepared. They have no financial information after 10 years of this? Also, they don’t want to meet until the first day of early voting? How can anyone not see the City Council approved $500,000 for the mayor to escape his responsibilities and leave office? This is what you’ve paid for, lawyers to avoid collective bargaining (which the mayor says he supports) to allow the Mayor to leave office. So, you say all of this is the fire fighters faults? I would be open to hearing a little more about that. But, if you have nothing to support that, maybe an examination of your own attitudes and where that comes from is in order.
On the subject of ‘rent seeking ‘, all of these interviews include questions about housing affordability, the increasing population, the rise of the cost of living. Why should firefighters be excluded from all of these issues? If rent seeking is standard of living, I wouldn’t be ashamed to say firefighters deserve a solid standard of living in the city they serve.
Rent seeking is a term in economics relating to attempting to get more economic benefit that you would normally receive by manipulating the political or economic scene. It has nothing to do with the cost of housing. The whole proposition to make firefighter pay the same as police pay was rent seeking. The firefighters weren’t providing additional services for the extra cost, and Houston did not have any problems hiring firefighters for the previous compensation. Putting the proposition in front of voters was classic rent seeking activity.
Here’s some explanation of the term:
Rent-seeking is the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society.
I’ve said before that if I were in charge and the firefighters get what they were wanting from the proposition, I would change the staffing schedule to 5 8 hour shifts per week and prohibit outside employment. That would probably cut firefighter income in half, since every firefighter I’ve ever met has an outside job they work on their off days. Yes, I am old and grumpy.
I’d hate to break it to you, but there is no more proposition B. If the city didn’t have a problem hiring people, what was the 18% raise over 3 years the mayor gave, without the input of the Union? Is that rent seeking? Because the firefighters were called rent seekers when they were asking for raises comparable to 18% before the Mayor came up with the idea. Maybe. Just maybe, the Union had a valid point and the mayor didn’t want to pay then comparable to other cities. Seeking comparable wages is hardly the economic term ‘rent seeking’. And if the city needs to raid the fire department pension in order to pay for the deferred liability the city incurred, that’s plain old theft. So, after being stolen from, told you’re not worth your contemporaries, then called rent seekers after all that, there ain’t much left to say but go fuck yourself.
And that’s being about as polite as I possibly can..
Davis is being as polite as he possibly can.