Last Tuesday, while I was out of town, Council Member Stephen Costello did a presentation about Renew Houston at HCDP headquarters. (CM Sue Lovell was supposed to be with him but was unable to make it because a committee meeting for which she was the chair went long.) I wasn’t there, I don’t know how it went, but a couple of bloggers, Open Source Dem and Stan Merriman were there, and they weren’t impressed. I now wish I had been there, because I don’t quite get what it is that they don’t like.
You can go read their pieces and see what you think for yourself. Both seem to agree that the need is there to improve drainage. Open Source Dem mostly seems to dislike the fact that CM Costello is a Republican. He’s none too impressed with the Democrats on Council, either, saying “Most Democrats on Council seem to defer to the GOP on public health, public safety, public works, and above all public finance, but handle anything involving cute puppies with exquisite tenderness.” I daresay that would come as a surprise to CM Melissa Noriega, who chairs the Public Safety committee, and CM Jolanda Jones, who isn’t particularly deferential on many things, and pretty much everyone else for that matter, but never mind. I’m really not sure what that has to do with anything.
Merriman’s post is even more opaque to me. The one point he makes that I feel I can comment on is his contention that this ought to be viewed as a project that’s “perfect for federal stimulus funds”. Hey, I’d love to see the feds get involved in this sort of infrastructure improvement all over the country – Lord knows, just in terms of water-related needs, there’s a ton to address. Last I checked, though, that ain’t gonna happen, certainly not when “concern” about the deficit is driving the conversation and it takes 60 votes in the Senate to go to the potty. I’d put my money on the Astros winning the World Series before that.
So where does that leave us? I’m going to go back to what I said before. Either you believe this is a problem that needs to be addressed or you don’t. If you do believe this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but you don’t like Renew Houston, what exactly is your plan to address it? Remember, it’s been nine years since anyone proposed a solution. Voting down the Renew Houston proposition, much as it was with health care reform in Congress, doesn’t mean that proponents of Doing Something About The Problem will come right back with a solution that’s more to your liking. It means the issue will disappear from the conversation for another few years, and more likely than not what will come up next when someone else decides to pick up the ball will be something less ambitious. I don’t see how that helps.
Is Renew Houston the best possible solution to the drainage problem we all agree the city has? I don’t know what the “ideal” funding mechanism would be, given that it’s a local issue, so I can’t adequately answer that question. There are things to criticize about Renew Houston, as Tory and Neil have done. But it’s what we’ve got, and the choice isn’t between Renew Houston and some other ordinance/referendum/whatever that could be passed as an alternative, the choice is between Renew Houston and doing nothing for another ten years. I believe Renew Houston is an improvement over the status quo, and I plan to vote for it.
I agree with your analysis. It’s easy to find fault with any proposal. However, the alternative of needing floats and a rudder on your car isn’t too great either.
Sounds like the ‘classic’ strategy that has been employed by Joe B. Allen and Co. with manangement districts throughout the area.
First, point out that there is a problem and that this is the best solution to solve it.
Again, Joe & Co. have laid out this very well with the flooding and infrastructure issues in Houston. These are not new issues, but creating an additional layer of governmental bureaucracy that in not accountable to taxpayers and by implementing a regressive tax to finance the project (and the pockets of Costello, Jeff Ross, and others who will benefit from this plan) IS a new idea that is NO GOOD FOR TAXPAYERS.
An alternate plan? How about just using the format we already have- A city council to levy additional taxes to pay for the work, through the ad valorem tax- a progressive and more fair tax to finance such things and Public Works, the city managed department that has historically managed these projects. They are quite capable of managing this task if given adequate funding by city leaders.
Creating ‘off the books’ financing for projects we already are paying for sounds like a bad idea for taxpayers (Enron?) and should NOT be the plan going forward. Our city leaders should see this for what it is and do what is right for taxpayers, not ‘in it for the money’ folks lining up at City Hall looking for a ‘municipal handout’ at the expense of taxpayers.
Some things to consider-
-Homeowners would be paying an ‘after tax’ fee that is non deductible, while developers and comercial entities would be able to deduct the ‘fees’ as an operating expense.
-Homeowners would be paying the same rate as developers and other ‘insiders’ for infrastructure improvements, whereas under an ad valorem tax implementation, the distribution of the expense would be more equitible.
-Through the city, there would be no additional ‘layer of government’ created to address the issue, we would just have to spend money on the work that we would have to spend anyway.
Altruism is not the motivation here- just follow the money. Big money has been made off of taxpayers through the management district system and now we have a plan in front of us that will be like a ‘giant’ manangement district, this time encompassing all taxpayers of Houston!
It’s not as simple as Renew makes it out to be. The city is just as much at fault for letting people build large developments right new to water sheds with no water retention or were allowed to change their requires retention responsibilities. In my business (real estate) I have seen many examples of the city letting people add dirt to their lot or development raising it above their neighbors property and where do you think that water is going to go?! It’s going to flood their neighbors property. It doesn’t take a genius or engineer to figure that out… a plumber could easily tell you that! I also wonder why Renew Houston refuses to disclose who their membership is (past & present) and I believe they have violated state & city campaign finance laws by raising a reported $1 million and not reporting it since they appear to be a PAC. They sent out several hundred thousand mailers to get their referendum on the November ballot and that mailer clearly stated “Paid Political Adverting by Renew Houston”. This is why I am against this proposal. CM Costello talks about transparency… well let’s see some! I am all for working to fix our flooding issue but I doubt this plan will do that & it will take over $400 million a year out of our local economy from the very people who can afford it least. I think getting $$$ from the Feds is a lot better idea!
Bob Derr
With the first robocall, I wondered who was behind Renew Houston. When I received the first mailer, I thought “hmmm…they’ve got lots of money…wonder who’s behind it?” and checked out the website. No mention of a board of directors or steering committee other than that oft-referenced but mysterious “consortium of engineers.” I consider those engineers as reliable a source as the “majority of consumers surveyed who prefer our brand.” I sent an email on the requisite digital form begging the question, “who’s behind this?” and received no reply. Steve Costello gave us little more.
I was also suspicious about how this fee (careful to not call it a tax) will be determined. I wondered why I should pay a higher fee for my modest (in size and value) home on 1.5 acres of mostly grass and trees (which we all know helps to mitigate flooding) than a similar size condo development covered with concrete. How about a home 3x the value of mine on the same sized lot? Literature simply says the fee is based on size of lot but CM Costello claims the fee only applies to non-permeable surfaces, that I’ll get credit for my grass. Then why not put that in writing?
Like most of my neighbors in this working class neighborhood that experienced street flooding after Ike and Allison despite previous 4 decades of no flooding, I’m suspicious. Whenever anonymous people with money tell us what’s good for us, we end up getting screwed. Why should any of us think this will be different? See also, the column Rick Casey (Hou Chron) wrote a few weeks back.
Virg- you are ‘dead on’. Renew Houston is the antonym to transparency!
I have to ask, were the issues of transparency resolved in some fashion and Virg’s suggestion that the non-permeable suface issue be directly addressed, woud those who have commented expressing doubts still oppose it or would they support the measure?
Personally, the underlying premise that we move from a system that issues debt to pay for projects to one that pays for projects with dedicated funds that cannot be used for another purpose is a pretty good idea. Spend less on interest and more on actual repairs? As someone who just moved back in my house this month after a flood last year, I’m all for that.
Patrick… your dedicated fund point is a valid issue but you might want to watch this YouTube of CM Costello on the hard hitting Red White & Blue…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3Nh0Y_YTQ&feature=related
Also if anyone thinks $5 a month on your water bill is gonna pay for this you’re kiddin’ yourself. There are aprox 400,000 homes in H-town. 400,000 X $60 a year is only $24 million according to my calculator. Renew is asking for $400 million plus. Where is that other $375+ million coming from?
Bob, thanks for the link. It was very informative to a point. On balance I think I was more pursuaded by CM Costello’s presentation.
Full disclosure: I work for an engineering and construction company. This is not the type of work that we normally do (more commercial/industrial work) but we have as a company done some road projects in the past. Personally I also had my house flood last year, too. That’s some background on my point of view. Please take that for what it’s worth. Onward.
Mr. Hotze was quick out of the blocks witht the one liners about the math of the funding and the city needing new batteries for its calculators only to undermine the joke by getting his very simple math wrong. Early in the broadcast (~3:10 mark) he drops that the city wants to spend $10B over 10 years and that he’s heard it’s actually as high as $13B over 10 years which according to him means expenditures of $650M per year. Um, no. That would be $1.3B per year if the timeline were 10 years. I suspect he misspoke meaning to say over 20 years. That squares both the proposal and the math of his whipser number of $13B.
Mr. Hotze kept tossing out numbers every few minutes but watching him I couldn’t help but think of James Gregory’s performance as Senator Johnny Islelin in “The Manchurian Candidate” when he thundered away about the number of communists in the federal government.
CM Costello fairly effectively responded by noting that Mr. Hotze didn’t have the full set of numbers that went into the proposal (It would be more than fair to ask CM Costello when access to those numbers would be available) and that Mr. Hotze seemed to be focusing on only one ascpect of the funding sources for future road and drainage projects under this proposal. He then proceeded to mention 3 main sources – fees charged to developers who plan projects that cannot be supported by the existing system; fees charged to individuals based on the size of their lots – the source of the widely cited $5 per average lot number; and lastly funding from the existing sources in the COH budget to include funds used to pay existing debt which Mr. Costello cites as the source of the bulk of the funding. (Note to CM Costello: Rough percentages for the sources would clarify and bolster this point even more.)
Costello circles back later in the broadcast to clarify the individual user fees noting that in addition to the roughly 400,000 homes in the city, commercial developments would also be subect to these fees. Good to know. The petition online says the combined target for this portion of funding is $125M. That’s a long way from the $24M that would be raised for the $5/per house average.
When asked why such a measure is needed Costello noted that public safety (police and fire) account for about 60% of the budget. The rest of the city services – roads, drainage, parks, cultural programs, BARC, etc are competing year after year for funding and frankly unsexy infrastructure projects haven’t gotten the same advocacy in the funding process that other services and programs do. The scope of the work needed to improve the infrastruture and not just maintain it requires a more dedicated source of funding that can be counted on for many years. Essentially it seems ReNew Houston wants to make that pitch for money, lots of it, once and have it established as a budget commitment for 20 years through a charter amendment.
Mr. Hotze was quick to point out that courts have intervened to strike down some charter amendments and they are not nearly as binding as they would seem. He also asked why the city wasn’t going after the money owed to it by Metro. Costello responded that in addition to his 3 previously noted funding sources, monies received form 3rd parties such as Metro would indeed also go into the fund.
As plans go there is a good bit to recommend it if you accept the basic premise that the projects to be funded are truly needed. I tend to think that infrastructure is good place to spend money especially when it is done is a proactive, not reactive fashion.
That said, if this proposal were to be enacted it would put pressure on the other services in the budgeting process. I can foresee there would be a temptation to raid these funds in the out years.
I would like to know more about the selection criteria for the projects. The pitch is that the worst projects are fixed first but that begs the question, how does one define “worst”?
Lastly is the issue of transparency. I can understand the skepticism of this proposal with a 20 year life span being presented by a CM who owns a business that potentially stands to benefit from the projects funded by this proposal. The longer those behind ReNEW Houston stay for lack of a better term, veiled, the more ammo opposition will have when this goes on the ballot. Same goes for the targeted funding levels. If I were them, I’d get out in front of this and air it out.
Regardless of who is sponsoring it, the idea of converting to a pay as you go system that folds money currently used for servicing debt into the pot for capital improvements is attractive enough for me to support it even if it comes at the cost of an additional fee.
Patrick, you have to admit… when a special interest group is asking for $8-10 BILLION and don’t want to disclose who they are… that’s a wee bit suspicious to say the very least! I think full disclosure in order asap!
Bob, We’re in violent agreement on that point. But remember that some of the total reflects money being spent already to maintain the system and service debt.
Let me disclose up front that I am a landscape architect. I own a small landscape architecture firm and my profession can benefit from the Renew Houston initiative. Do I believe that my company can benefit? No. But I digress…
However, we can all agree that stormwater is a huge problem for the Houston area, right? It has been estimated that to fix the stormwater issues in the area it would cost the City $4-$10 billion. The $10 billion sounds like a more realistic figure to me. I believe that Renew Houston as a funding mechanism is a good idea. The City of Houston and Harris County Flood Control does not have the funds to help alleviate the stormwater problems and the flooding.
The solutions used with the money is were things get sticky for me. Due to the lack of disclosure of Renew Houston and the fact that Council Member Costella is an advocate, I can only assume that its a consortium of civil engineers who will attempt to benefit. Don’t misunderstand me, civil engineers will be needed. However, over 90% of civil engineers would solve the stormwater problems with the standard “hole in the ground” solution with huge pipes and huge costs. The solution to the stormwater problems needs to be a multi-disciplinary approach with the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. The Houston Land/Water Sustainability Forum has been educating and informing the A/E community about the benefits of using LID solutions. The site is http://www.houstonlwsforum.org/
If you haven’t heard of LID, it is a type green infrastructure. Simply put, LID handles the water at the source at many locations instead of the traditional “hole-in-ground” solution collects all the water from a large water shed in one location. LID does this by using rain gardens, green roofs, and rainwater harvesting. It has been proven that this greener approach is a viable option for many communities struggling with the maintenance of aging systems. In addition, by providing multiple benefits, this approach offers the potential for municipalities to more cost effectively manage a number of environmental regulatory requirements.
The result of using a LID solution is:
-lower costs to install
-it’s sustainable
-it’s green
-it improves communities by providing needed open space
-it improves property values
-and it’s a more elegant solution that provides beauty to the community
-it’s been proven and it works
Let the facts lead you to the conclusion that LID and green infrastructure is the the sustainable solution to Houston’s stormwater problems.