This is a pretty fair take on it.
Given Houston’s history of flooded streets, businesses and homes over the past decade, the Chronicle agrees with the aims of Renew Houston, the organization of engineers that is backing the proposition. What we like most is the pay-as-you-go feature that eliminates long-term debt and maximizes infrastructure bang for the taxpayers’ bucks.
As At-large City Councilman and engineer Stephen Costello explains, the city’s streets and drainage system have long been grossly underfunded, with a waiting list for needed projects of up to a decade or more. “If you put the numbers to it, we’ll never catch up,” says Costello. “So the system is chronically decaying.”
[…]
However, before endorsing the plan, we would like to see how much the actual program would cost, and how it would differentiate between properties with a large percentage of green space and trees that absorb runoff, and heavily developed parcels mostly covered by pavement and buildings. Should the low-income owner of a lot in a sparsely developed area pay the same fee as one with the same square footage valued at millions of dollars in upscale neighborhoods inside the Loop? Should public service nonprofits and schools and churches be exempt from the fee?
What will be the mechanism for deciding which street repair and drainage projects get fixed first? Historically, the infrastructure in poorer, minority neighborhoods in Houston has been neglected as more politically connected communities received higher priority. How can voters be assured that will not happen again?
I don’t have a whole lot to add to this. As long as decent questions are being asked, I feel good about having an informed debate on this topic. At the very least, I hope we’ll soon have a better idea of which groups do and do not support Renew Houston.