Precinct analysis: The Dome and the jail

Now that precinct data is out, the Chron has an updated take on what sunk the Astrodome referendum.

We still have the memories

Overall, 53.4 percent of Harris County voters rejected the bond issue that would have renovated the long-vacant Dome into a convention and exhibit space. In Houston, 50.1 percent of the voters turned it down, while in unincorporated Harris County, 56.4 percent snubbed it.

Political analysts saw overlapping trends with the preliminary data, released last week by the Harris County Clerk’s Office.

First, residents who lived farther from the Dome were more likely to vote it down. Second, conservative areas – not only the suburbs but also inside the city, particularly the west side – tended to oppose the measure. And third, whites opposed the measure, with blacks in support.

University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus and others agreed race was not the controlling factor, however. Rottinghaus said age could explain the correlation: Many black neighborhoods inside the city are full of older folks who have lived in their homes for decades, he noted, and might have more memories of the Dome.

“If you conceive of the Dome question as being a question of those who had a nostalgic feel for the Dome, older people gave it what little support it had,” Rottinghaus said. “But newer areas of Houston or people who have been transplanted from other places, those people are less likely to have a nostalgic feel for the Dome.”

Rice University political scientist Bob Stein was less convinced that nostalgia was a driving force. Data shows the deciding factor was proximity to the Dome, he said.

Political philosophy drove the Dome’s poor showing in typically conservative areas, including the suburbs, said Republican communications consultant Jim McGrath. He noted the ballot language specified, at the request of Harris County Commissioners Court, that approval would result in a tax hike.

“I kept hearing it was a boondoggle and nobody wanted to sign on for that,” McGrath said. “A lot of people said it was great architecture and ought to be preserved and it was the Eighth Wonder of the World. I get all of that, but the passion was on the side of the folks who said, ‘We ought not be spending this kind of money, we have other priorities in the county.’ ”

A lot of what is being said here was said before, only this time now we have the numbers. And here’s what they look like by my check:

Dist       For  Against   For %
===============================
A        7,172    8,693  45.21%
B        6,817    6,203  52.36%
C       15,428   15,288  50.23%
D        9,874    7,954  55.38%
E        7,819   12,302  38.86%
F        3,674    4,189  46.73%
G       11,049   14,766  42.80%
H        4,761    4,390  52.03%
I        4,400    4,042  52.12%
J        2,782    2,540  52.27%
K        7,872    6,420  55.08%

Here it is broken down by various groups:

Group      For  Against   For %
===============================
Houston 81,648   86,787  48.47%
Harris  30,312   41,699  42.09%
			
Dem     49,152   44,297  52.60%
Rep     26,040   35,761  42.14%
Swing    6,456    6,729  48.96%
			
AA      24,563   20,577  54.42%
Latino   9,161    8,432  52.07%
Anglo   41,468   51,049  44.82%
Other    6,456    6,729  48.96%

My percentage for the city of Houston is lower than what the Chron cites because of split precincts, by which I mean precincts that are partly in Houston and partly not. I’ve tried to tease it out where I can, but for the most part in a precinct where there are city of Houston votes, all of them are counted towards the Houston total.

The other groups are determined by Council district. I’ve defined “Dem” as Districts B, C, D, H, I, and K; “Rep” as A, E, and G; and “Swing” as F and J. Similarly, African-American districts are B, D, and K; Latino districts are H and I; Anglo districts are A, C, E, and G; and Other are F and J.

The numbers basically speak for themselves. I agree with the observation Houston Politics makes in its presentation of maps that show the vote by precinct that there was a lot more fervent opposition to the Dome project than there was fervent support. There were people who were passionate about saving the Dome, but that didn’t necessarily translate to them being passionate about this specific plan to save the Dome. I agree with Jim McGrath’s point about people thinking this plan wasn’t worth a bump in their property taxes. Now, I’m sure some of these people would rather starve to death than vote to increase their property taxes, but I think a lot of people just didn’t see the value in this particular plan. Some of that may be due to lack of campaigning for the Dome, some of it may be due to lack of a clear understanding what the New Dome project would mean and how it would work, and some of it may be due to other factors. While at this point I think it’s probably best to take another crack at finding a private investor to do something with the Dome, I do think it’s possible that a different referendum for a publicly-financed Dome project to pass. That referendum will need a clear statement about what the money is going to be used for and how it will benefit the County, and it will need a better conceived and executed sales plan to get the voters to buy in to it.

I believe a similar lesson can be learned from the successful but too-close-for-comfort joint inmate processing facility referendum. Here are those numbers, with the same disclaimers as above:

Dist       For  Against   For %
===============================
A        7,146    7,707  48.11%
B        5,797    6,146  48.54%
C       15,897   12,366  56.25%
D        7,864    8,437  48.24%
E        8,295   10,719  43.63%
F        3,530    3,884  47.61%
G       13,390   10,726  55.52%
H        4,075    4,370  48.25%
I        3,543    4,258  45.42%
J        2,620    2,371  52.49%
K        6,754    6,320  51.66%


Group      For  Against   For %
===============================
Houston 78,911   77,304  50.51%
Harris  33,468   34,600  49.17%

Dem     43,930   41,897  51.18%
Rep     28,831   29,152  49.72%
Swing    6,150    6,255  49.58%

AA      20,415   20,903  49.41%
Latino   7,618    8,628  46.89%
Anglo   44,728   41,518  51.86%
Other    6,150    6,255  49.58%

Here it’s clear that this referendum owes its passage to the voters in Districts C and G. What this says to me is that just because an item has no opposition doesn’t mean it needs no advocacy. In the absence of other information, it’s likely that some people read this referendum and wrongly concluded that it meant increasing jail capacity like the failed 2007 bond, or another bump in taxes like the Astrodome item. People can’t be blamed for reaching faulty conclusions if they have incomplete evidence. There needed to be a campaign to create and send mailers to targeted voters explaining the virtues of this referendum – no new taxes, no increase in jail capacity, better city-county cooperation, better and more efficient means to divert non-violent offenders into drug counseling and/or mental health treatment, etc. Given that there were no outside groups that had a stake in this, and given that it was an item on the to do lists for Commissioners Court and the Sheriff, I think what should have happened is that Judge Emmett, Sheriff Garcia, and each of the Commissioners should have kicked in a few bucks from their personal finance accounts to help create a PAC to advertise this referendum. Mayor Parker could contribute, too, since closing the city jails was a key component of this. They could work it out among themselves who gave how much, then they could find a couple of respected folks from the mental health or drug rehab worlds to over see the PAC and design the message. If accomplishing an important piece of local government business requires a vote from the public, then local government leaders need to do more than just put the question before the voters and hope the come back with the right answer. There may be campaign finance issues to be dealt with for something like this to happen, but my bottom line remains the same: No opposition doesn’t equate to automatic approval. Let’s learn that lesson and be happy we didn’t have to learn it the hard way.

Related Posts:

• Precinct analysis: The Harris County bonds
• More on the Emmett Astrodome Park plan
• Theories abound about why the Dome referendum failed