I had noticed that there was no negative reaction to the Houston/Woodlands non-annexation deal in yesterday’s story. Today we get some.
Two local lawmakers, though, said they expect to give the deal a close look before backing enabling legislation.
“From a fiscal standpoint, you want to make sure we are getting the most tax dollars we can receive,” said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. “We have ample room to grow. One thing we never want to give away is our ability to annex. That has been the death of other major cities.”
Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said he is reluctant to tie the hands of future leadership, but said he would reserve judgment until he talks to all stakeholders.
“The Woodlands would be nothing but a deer lease if it weren’t for the city of Houston,” he said. “Residents of The Woodlands enjoy the golden goose of Houston. They get the benefits of working here during the day and then going back to their comfortable, homogenous, bedroom communities at night.”
As the president of The Woodlands Community Association board of directors said, the devil is in the details. It’s perfectly clear what the Woodlands gets out of this. Either Houston gets enough for what it loses or it doesn’t. Let the fine-tooth examinations begin!
On a related note, Stace clarifies his position on the matter.
If W had any say in the matter, he’d deploy the Army troops into the Woodlands (the politically correct term :”peacekeepers”) and start another government and fire Rumsfeld again while trying to deflect a looming civil war.
If the Gov had a say in the matter, he’d erect a wall at the Cypress River and install video cameras AND THEN build a 20-lane trans-texas corridor over the wall without any exits to facilitate trade.