Metro had a public meeting on Thursday to address the question of the diversion of transit funds to cities for road projects, which is expected to be a referendum topic this fall. The Chron has a story about the meeting that contains the following facepalm-inducing paragraphs:
Resident Thomas Bazan said many residents don’t support the rail lines under construction that are absorbing millions of Metro’s dollars.
“Metro has poisoned the well of the public,” Bazan said. “Unaccountable bureaucrats have diverted our precious tax resources away from improving the bus system in favor of an unsafe and unreliable at-grade tram line on Main Street. Metro has failed to honor a 50 percent increase in bus service promised in the 2003 referendum.”
I don’t know who Chron reporter Renee Lee is, but apparently she is unfamiliar with the players in this game. Tom Bazan, as a passing familiarity with Metro or 30 seconds on Google could tell you, is a longtime Metro critic and zealous opponent of light rail. He’s one of the dedicated cranks in this town who have been trying to overturn the 2003 referendum on the grounds that it doesn’t say what they say it says. Quoting him being critical of Metro and light rail is like quoting a Red Sox fan being critical of the Yankees. Not identifying him for who and what he is borders on journalistic malpractice.
Beyond that, the story does deal give some feedback from Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen and Houston City Council member Stephen Costello, both of whom urged the Metro board to continue dedicating some portion of its sales tax receipts to road projects. While there is some push to dedicate all of the funds to transit, in part to correct a longstanding imbalance, I don’t think that’s likely to be on the table, and if it were it would be more challenging to pass at the ballot box. I believe Metro will propose some change in the allocation to give transit a boost, and that will most likely be fine. I will say that I have heard stories about cities receiving more funds than they can actually use on road projects, and that some cities have used these funds for general revenue purposes. I don’t have any specifics and I don’t know if there’s more to this than just anecdote, but I would advocate for more transparency on how these funds are used. This should be Metro’s responsibility to track and report, and for all I know they already do this. All I can say is that if they do it’s not something I’ve ever seen publicized or highlighted. Point being, whatever we decide to do with the mobility funds, we should know exactly how they’re spent and what we’re getting out of it. I think that’s an outcome that even a persistent critic would support.