Guide to the Houston Political Jungle

Houston City Council Ignores Vote of the People

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 21:03:00 +0000

You'll recall back on November 6th the citizens of our great city voted to approve Proposition B for firefighter pay parity. It may not have been a perfect resolution to an existing problem, and the cost may have been problematic for our Houston elected officials to face .... but the measure was approved by a vote of the people - and that's that. And as such, our elected officials have a duty to respect and implement the result.

Unfortunately, members of Houston City Council chose to ignore the electorate and decided instead to spend $500,000 to hire an outside law firm to get an opinion as to whether the Prop B vote was legal. (With that decision are also many questions about the law firm selection process and the law firm's relationship to the Mayor, but that's way too much shade to cover in this blog. Ted Oberg has a good piece on it here if you want to know more.)

Now, one could ask oneself, "why in the heck wouldn't they do that BEFORE the election? They've had the information for over a year..." and that would be a great question.

The answer is a little more smarmy and may be a tad disturbing to know. Months ago, Mayor Turner shared with more than a few people that should Prop B pass, his plan was to tie it up in court until the firefighters gave in to his will. And he has done just that.

Joining the Mayor in the decision to spend a whole lot of tax dollars on legal fees to delay implementation of pay parity:

Mayor Pro Temp Ellen Cohen
Vice Mayor Pro Temp Jerry Davis
CM At Large David Robinson
CM At Large Steve Le
CM Robert Gallegos
CM Mike Laster
CM Martha Castex-Tatum
CM Dave Martin

And now the Mayor has convinced the Houston Police Officers Union to continue to battle the firefighters by filing a lawsuit claiming the Prop B measure is illegal. They were granted a 14 day restraining order to halt implementation. And so we wait.

You know folks, there is something to be said for acting in good faith. We are in a sad state of affairs here in our fair city when our elected officials actively advocate against the will of the people and against strong public safety. The citizens see this move for what it is, just another maneuver to avoid dealing with the elephant in the room. Ignoring the elephants is never a good idea, even an elephant as ugly as this one. #tb

The Harris County Wipeout

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:08:00 +0000

The 2018 Midterm Elections brought the obliteration of nearly all of the Harris County Republican candidates running for re-election. Gone are County Judge Ed Emmett, County Clerk Stan Stanart, County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez, District Clerk Chris Daniel, and a very long list of judges. The only conservative left standing this election is Commissioner Jack Cagle. While straight-ticket voting was pointed to as the culprit for the R wipeout, the numbers prove that's simply not the case. What caused the wipeout of the Republicans is simple: Democrats turned out the vote and the Republicans didn't.

As a follow up to the election results Judge Emmett tweeted, "Keeping the straight ticket option for 1 more election cycle turned out to be a disaster for all Republicans. With the long ballot, more than 75% of voters chose to vote straight ticket, and the Democrats outvoted Republicans by more than 100K." And that is the telling part of the story. Turnout matters.

And turnout there was. According to Evan Siegfreid, nationally, "115 million Americans — a 32 percent increase from the 2014 midterm election, voted in the 2018 midterm elections. This turnout rate of 49 percent of eligible voters is the highest since 1914 and the largest since the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Young voters (18-29), saw a 56 percent surge over 2014 turnout, which is the highest increase in turnout among any age group. While only 31 percent of eligible younger voters showed up to the polls, this is an increase of several million voters and was to the benefit of Democrats."

Seigfreid also noted a few significant demographic shifts in this election.

Women voters went from D+4 in 2014 to D+19 in 2018
Young voters were D+11 in 2014 to D+35 in 2018
Voters 65 and older broke R+16 in 2014, but shifted toward Dems and were R+2 in 2018

In Harris County, we saw over one million voters turn out for the first time ever in a midterm election. Pretty impressive. So, what does the Democrat sweep of Harris County mean? Not much really, unless you are a contractor vying for county contracts. Or, you count that we will have 27-year-old graduate student Lina Hildalgo running the third largest county in the country. Not saying she won't be up to the task, but think forward to what we will need during the next natural disaster here. We certainly hope she will be capable of leading 5 million people out of harm's way when the time comes.

Pundits seem to agree the much-anticipated wave of either color did not materialize in this election. At the State level, Republicans swept every statewide office for the 20th year in a row and maintained dominant majorities in both houses of the state Legislature as well as the Texas delegation to the U.S. Congress. The most publicized contest between El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke and incumbent Senator Ted Cruz turned out to be closer than predicted, but Cruz came away with the win despite millions in outside money, celebrity endorsements. and a national media who fawned over O'Rourke. O'Rourke did not prevail largely due to the demographics of (rural) Texas, folks who dislike the things he represents: outside influence and progressive identity politics. Look for him to be back in 2020.

Suffice to say, in a midterm expected to rebuke a GOP-dominated federal government and a controversial occupant of the White House, Texas Democrats hoped for historic victories which did not come to fruition. Losing the U.S. House was an expected setback. However, the average President loses 37 seats in his first midterm: Obama lost 63, Clinton lost 53, and President Trump lost only 26 while advancing Republican seats in the Senate. A historic achievement which would indicate that the Trump movement is still strong and building momentum towards the 2020 election (which kicked off on November 7th). #tb

Propositions on the November 6 Ballot and What They Mean to You

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:16:00 +0000

Proposition A – ReBuild Houston - Oppose

Background

In 2010, the City of Houston proposed a charter amendment that would create a “lockbox” fund which would hold and protect monies earmarked for infrastructure and drainage projects. Shortly after the very narrow passage of the “lock box” charter amendment (51%), city leaders imposed a drainage fee on every piece of real property in Houston (with the exception of government-owned property and churches).

Subsequently a lawsuit was filed and in 2015, the charter amendment was deemed null and void by the Texas Supreme Court citing misleading and deceptive ballot language by the City. The ballot language did not mention to voters that they would be financially penalized with a substantial fee when/if the measure passed. The Court directed the city to hold a new election with clear ballot language. Since its inception seven years ago, approximately $1.8 billion has been collected through the ReBuild Houston “lock box” program, including an estimated $785 million in drainage fees. That’s a lot of money collected with no noticeable results.

The City of Houston has raided funds that should have been utilized for street and drainage repair and has spent those dollars on parks, bike trails and over 500 Public Works Department salaries. Additionally, transparency on the utilization of the funds has been nonexistent and the “lockbox” is not, and never has been, locked. Voting no on this measure will send a message to the city’s elected leadership that the people who live and work in Houston deserve honesty, integrity and transparency. Houston did not vote to impose a drainage fee on itself the first time around in 2010, and we shouldn’t vote to continue the fees until such time as the City of Houston provides clear and transparent proof that the funds will be spent on the projects that will ease flooding and provide marked improvement in the conditions of our roadways.

What Will Change?

Mayor Turner says, “If Prop A fails, the city will lose a "dedicated" funding source for flooding, drainage and street improvements.” If the measure fails, the City should repeal the drainage fees imposed on Houstonians and eliminate the “lock box”. They should consider proposing a fully thought-out pay-as-you-go plan that truly improves the current infrastructure and road situation.

If the measure passes, elected officials will continue collecting drainage fees, and once again “promise” to restrict the funds for use on drainage and infrastructure. Unfortunately, we have heard that promise before.

Proposition B – Firefighters’ Pay Parity - Support

Background

Following pension cuts created within the 2017 legislative session “pension reform” legislation, and a break down in collective bargaining negotiations, Houston Firefighters launched a petition drive to force a vote of the citizens of Houston on pay parity. Firefighters garnered 60,000 Houston voter signatures shortly after which qualified the pay parity issue to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. Proposition B is a vote to grant equal pay for firefighters’ and police officer’s for similar job titles/responsibilities. While comparing police to fire is as equal to comparing apples and bananas, there is something to be said for paying fair wages to maintain a solid and reliable public safety workforce.

What Will Change?

A yes vote on Proposition B will force the City of Houston to fairly compensate Houston’s firefighters and to negotiate in good faith. Mayor Turner has been on the campaign trail claiming that Houston cannot afford to fairly compensate our firefighters. His message has been to threaten layoffs which will reduce services and negatively impact public safety. Mayor Turner has failed to acknowledge that he has added over 2,000 NEW FTE’s to the Houston payroll since taking office in 2016. Just recently the Mayor and City Council approved a $52 million dollar raise for Houston Police Officers. Under the passage of Proposition H in 2006, $90M in tax dollars were earmarked for police, fire, and emergency medical services each year. The public has been provided no accounting of where the over $900,000,000.00tax dollars collected over the period since Proposition H was approved has been spent. From the looks of it, none of that money has gone to the firefighters. We believe efficiencies could certainly be identified to cut spending and maintain our firefighter workforce and public safety.

Houston’s firefighters deserve to be treated with fairness and equity by elected leaders.

#tb

Don't Buy Another Lie - No to ReBuild

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:57:00 +0000

ReBuild Houston - Nearly $1 Billion Collected - Few Improvements

Yesterday, Houston City Council approved revised ballot language to continue the ReBuild Houston program to hold drainage fees collected by the City. This charter referendum will be on the November 6 ballot. ReBuild Houston was supposed to be a "lockbox" of sorts to hold the drainage fee monies collected and to ensure those funds were utilized only for streets and drainage.

We'll use the term "lockbox" even though the fund has been held in more of a sieve than any type of box. Per Bill King, "in the first year after Rebuild was adopted, the City moved about 500 employees from being paid by the Public Works Department to being paid by the Rebuild fund. By my count, about half of these were sitting at desks at City Hall. To give you some idea how far afield the program has run, the City posted a position this year for a "pedestrian and bike coordinator" to be paid from Rebuild." A pedestrian and bike coordinator?

The promises of the money not being used for any other purpose than streets and drainage has been a flat out lie. There's no way to sugar coat what has happened to the nearly $1 billion, yes billion with a B, of citizen's hard earned money. Our streets remain in deplorable condition, and our drainage hasn't been improved or repaired (see "performance" illustration below).

Also according to King, "the City's books show that about 56 cents of every drainage dollar has been diverted to something other than drainage. And that is based on a very generous definition of drainage to include any street, driveway, curb and sidewalk constructed at the same time drainage work is done. My best guess is that about 20% of the drainage fees have actually been spent on drainage. It makes you wonder how many people's houses might have been saved from flooding during Harvey if the City had actually spent the drainage fees on drainage."

Add to that the incredible lack of transparency from the City of Houston on how those funds have been spent and you have the perfect case of thanks, but no thanks. I cannot fathom a yes vote for a program that may have perpetuated what might be considered the biggest fraud against Houstonians in our history.

20 Drainage Projects in Five Years?

Not that a vote of the people matters to the City. Mayor Turner stated that he will continue the program even if Houstonians vote to repeal. So instead of city leaders accepting that a vote to repeal would be a vote against the lies that sold Houston the drainage fees in the first place, unfortunately, the drainage fee at the heart of the program is not at risk in the election. It is a cash cow city leaders are unwilling to give up. #tb

Elected Officials: Rulers or Representatives?

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:15:00 +0000

The below excerpt from City of Houston Council Member Mike Knox's August newsletter, explains well the current situation between the Mayor and the Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Elected Officials: Rulers or Representatives?

Once again, the Houston Council is being confronted with another ethical issue.

During July of 2017, the Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 341, submitted a petition to amend the Charter of the City of Houston to require the city to pay Fire Fighters of comparable rank equal to the officers of the Houston Police Department.

The Fire Fighters followed the requirements of the city ordinance and collected the required signatures and turned them in to the City Secretary to be verified. The City Secretary failed to verify the signatures in a timely manner. The opportunity was lost to place the petition before the voters on the November 2017 ballot. Following a court order, the city secretary verified the required signatures.

The Mayor has subsequently delayed placing the petition on the agenda for consideration by Council Members until August 8, 2018. The Mayor reasoned that he did not understand what parity means, how it is defined, or how much it would cost. Following weeks and months of questions by Council, and the attempt by some Council Members to force the item onto the agenda, the Mayor directed the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee (BFA Committee) to conduct a meeting. The purpose of this meeting was not to discuss placing the item onto the agenda but rather to inform Council Members about the merits and potential costs of the proposed City Charter Amendment.

Two things to note about the timing of this meeting. First, Council Members were informed by a memo from the city legal department that Council Members have a “ministerial duty” to place the item onto a ballot because the requirements to do so had been met. However, there is no requirement to place the item on the next available ballot. The suggestion was we, as Council Members, could vote to place the item on some future ballot beyond the upcoming November 2018 ballot. Second, The BFA meeting called was to focus on the costs to the city and the impact of those costs on the city budget. Therefore, the meeting provided Council Members the opportunity to legitimately postpone placing this item on the November 2018 ballot. Clearly, the unstated basis for the delay in placing the item on the November 2018 ballot is that it will adversely affect the current budget approved by council in May of 2018. The Mayor and several City Council Members do not agree with the content of the Fire Fighters’ petition. Therein lies the ethical issue.

Regardless of your stance on the issue, each Council Member and the Mayor must decide if it is their duty to rule over the citizens of Houston by denying this petition a place on the November 2018 ballot or, should they honor the process and represent their constituents by placing the item on the November 2018 ballot for the voters to decide.

Should the Charter Amendment pass, there is no doubt significant changes will have to be made to the existing budget. By postponing or delaying the placement of the item on the ballot your city leaders are indicating they think they know better how to spend your money than you do. More importantly, the City Government is suggesting they can ignore the process and decide, based on whether or not they agree with the proposed amendment, to place it on the first available ballot or to delay the item to some future ballot.

The upcoming August vote by council to place the item on the November 2018 ballot will be very telling. The citizens of Houston will be able to clearly see which of their elected officials view themselves as rulers and which ones recognize their responsibility to represent the will of the people.

It is my belief I was elected to represent the citizens of Houston – not to rule over them. The city charter has a provision which allows the citizens to force the city to consider their concerns by using the petition process. We should respect that process. We should not work to circumvent it by delaying, slow walking, or ignoring these issues altogether. Therefore, regardless of what I think about the merits of the Fire Fighters’ petition, or for that matter any petition brought forth by the citizens of Houston, I will be supporting placing the item on the November 6, 2018 ballot.

Thank you Council Member Knox for the excellent explanation and for always asking the right questions. #tb

#Union v. #Righttowork

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 28 Jun 2018 18:20:00 +0000

Yesterday's victory for the First Amendment put an end to the practice of forcing unwilling union participation for public sector employees. The Supreme Court, In a 5–4 decision on Janus v. AFSCME overturned the 1977 Abood case, which was the SCOTUS attempt to reconcile the financial claims of public-sector unions with the constitutional rights of public employees. The ruling reinstates the right of workers to not pay dues to a union they don’t agree with and don't want to belong to.

Reacting to the decision, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry said in a CNBC interview that the SEIU had launched a vigorous #union hashtag campaign to fight back against the man and encourage union members to "stick with the union."

A quick Twitter search for the #union hashtag turned up a plethora of elected officials (see photo) holding up "union" signs. That speaks volumes about who benefits from campaign contributions from organized labor. A lot of highly recognizable faces are involved including Houston's own Congresspersons Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green.

If they were counting on social outrage to help drive the message that American workers have been done wrong, I'm not seeing evidence of it so far. I think the protesters must all be busy on immigration issues.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders issued a statement stating: "The labor movement is bigger than one Supreme Court decision. We will continue to raise our voice, with greater energy and passion than ever, to take on the rigged economy and assert our rights and freedoms."

Rigged economy? Is this highly compensated union employee actually channeling Bernie Sanders? Then again, Bernie Sanders is also in the 1% ...

So as the union gravy train leaves the station,we will track with great interest the incentive of these elected folk as they purport to champion the rights of America's workers without the promise of a big paycheck. #tb

Flood Money

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:10:00 +0000

You'll recall that on June 12, Harris County Commissioners Court unanimously approved placing the $2.5 billion flood risk reduction bond issue on the August 25, 2018, ballot. If approved by voters, issuance of bonds would be spread over 10-15 years, and the expected HCFCD tax increase for most homeowners would be limited to 1.4% or less.

Harris County has flooding problems that have been ignored for far too long. Infrastructure improvements are no longer a want but a must have so voters may be more prone to approve a tax increase for themselves if it means better quality of life. However, the below information issued by the County lacks one thing: specificity. While they do a great job of covering their needs list, as is all too often the case with governmental entities looking for money, they want to figure out how to spend money AFTER they have it. Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with a detailed list of projects Harris County WILL do complete with related costs, not a wish list of "potential" projects. A well thought-out and detailed plan would go a long way towards securing voter support, especially after the the City of Houston's handling of drainage fees have been less than transparent.

More about the bond election from information provided by Council Member Greg Travis:

Flood damage reduction projects can include modifications to our streams and bayous to increase the amount of storm water that they can carry, the implementation of detention basins to store excess storm water, nonstructural flood mitigation tools such as voluntary home buyouts, and any combination of these methods to address local and regional flooding issues.

There are several types of projects that may be supported by bond funding:

Voluntary Home Buyouts: The purchase of flood-prone structures from willing sellers in areas too deep in the floodplain to benefit from structural flood reduction projects, or in areas where flood risk reduction projects are not feasible. This process includes the demolition of the structure and relocation of the seller to higher ground.

Storm Repair: Major maintenance projects to restore the designed function and capacity of a channel or stormwater detention basin.

Subdivision Drainage Improvement: Partnership projects with the Harris County Engineering Department and a Municipal Utility District to provide drainage improvements to subdivisions in unincorporated Harris County.

Local Projects: Flood risk reduction projects such as channel modifications or stormwater detention basin construction using only Harris County Flood Control District ("HCFCD") funds.

Partnership Projects: Flood risk reduction projects such as channel modifications or stormwater detention basin construction using a combination of HCFCD funding and funding from local, state, or federal partners such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Potential projects include:

Channel modifications to improve stormwater conveyance
Regional stormwater detention basins
Major repairs to flood-damaged drainage infrastructure
Removing large amounts of sediment and silt from drainage channels
Voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties
Wetland mitigation banks
Property acquisition for preserving the natural floodplains
Drainage improvements made in partnership with other cities, utility districts, or other local government agencies
Upgrading the Harris County Flood Warning System

Some of these projects will be funded with partnership agreements with the federal government. Bond funds would be used to provide the "local match" funding that is required for participation in these federal partnerships

When considering project ideas suggested by the community, HCFCD will prioritize projects meeting its mission to provide flood damage reduction projects that work, with appropriate regard for community and natural values. HCFCD will use the following criteria:

A project receiving the highest consideration:

Provides the greatest potential flood risk reduction benefits relative to the community's population
Causes NO increase in existing flood risks upstream or downstream
Offers potential for multiple benefits, in addition to flood risk reduction
Features long-term viability and relatively low maintenance
Includes a clearly defined drainage issue and flood risk reduction benefit
Uses readily available, proven engineering techniques and industry standards
Poses NO undue burden on disadvantaged communities
Minimizes adverse impacts on the environment

Factors that could negatively affect project consideration:

High costs for mitigating unavoidable environmental impacts
Dependence on pumps or other mechanical devices that could fail or involve a high annual maintenance cost
Project targets an area already having a relatively high level of drainage service
Located outside Harris County, with the exception of projects already approved (e.g., Clear Creek)

Those interested in providing public input to HCFCD should attend a meeting relating to their watershed and/or provide comments online. Officials with HCFCD are scheduling public meetings in each of the county's 23 watersheds to describe some of the projects the county is proposing and to solicit input from residents regarding which projects should be included. All 23 community engagement meetings are (or will soon be) described [here].

You may also mail your comments to HCFCD at 9900 Northwest Freeway, Houston, Texas 77092, ATTN: Bond Program Communications.

FAQs: https://www.hcfcd.org/bond-program/frequently-asked-questions/

For more information, please contact HCFCD Bond Program Hotline at 713-684-4107.

#tb

Paid Sick Leave Run Amok

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:14:00 +0000

Now that the paid sick leave wave has hit San Antonio and Dallas, outside the confines of the People's Republic of Austin where such efforts don't surprise us, it's time to examine who is driving (and more importantly, who is funding) efforts to attempt to require all employers to offer paid sick leave, regardless of business type or size.

There are a couple of groups at play here: the Texas Workers Defense Project (focused on construction jobs), and Working Texans for Paid Sick Time who claim to be "a broad coalition of Texas-based community and labor organizations who are working together to win paid sick policies in Texas." So who are these Working Texans for Paid Sick Time folks that have been so busy collecting petitions to get these measures considered? As we examined the regulations we noted an exemption for unionized companies, so there's our first clue.

Assuming a union is involved, it's relatively easy to see the play here:

The union, who has funded the regulation adoption campaign including signature collection, etc., ensures a carve-out for all "union" businesses.
A city council adopts oppressive regulations on all businesses in exchange for generous future campaign contributions from said union and without regard for the economic impact to its businesses (similar to the Bill White efforts here in Houston).
Once the measures are passed, the union approaches businesses to convince them that unionization is cheaper in the long haul than paying paid sick leave, the goal being to "encourage" businesses to become union.

I don't want to name names here, but the service industries would be the low hanging fruit for those unions. And, since unions by and large are failing miserably at attracting members these days, they may be trying the new tactic to make unionization more attractive.

It seems reasonable to expect that the same type of effort may be underway in Houston as well. Thankfully, according to the Texas Monitor, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, supported by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Austin, citing the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. Their premise is the exemption created by the council for unionized companies violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If the lawsuit doesn't put an end to the efforts, here's hoping the state legislature fixes it in the spring. Employee benefits are always driven by the market and these types of regulations only prove to increase the cost of doing business for everyone. Texas needs to maintain an environment that attracts new businesses, not scares them away with over-regulation brought on by special interests. Texas is not California. #tb

Flooding Houston with Thoughtless Regulation

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 13:49:00 +0000

Following the massive flooding events of the past three years, we can all agree that meaningful change to flood mitigation practices in some form or fashion is needed here in Houston. It's safe to say Houstonians have been "woke" to the need to make some changes.

So last month, attempting to do "something" Houston City Council enacted far-reaching regulations that will do very little to mitigate flooding in the next ten years (like say an aggressive plan to replace outdated storm sewer systems and dredge bayous would?), and will quash development and redevelopment for years to come by creating an even more financially unwelcoming environment for homeowners and businesses. I think it's safe to say when it comes to urban flight, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The U.S. Census recently released a report that showed Houston's growth has slowed considerably while the suburbs are growing five times faster.

To add insult to injury, some of us thought we already had done something to mitigate flooding. Remember the drainage fee that came with the promise Houston would never flood again? That not one single cent of the fee would be used for anything except streets and drainage? I remember.

Here's an ad that will refresh your memory as to the promises made.

It's estimated that over $1 billion has been collected by the City of Houston in drainage fees, which according to the ads to sell the proposition, could never ever ever be tapped for anything else but streets and drainage. Unfortunately, a lot of those funds have been diverted to parks, bike lanes and salaries for Houston Public Works employees. And no one would really protest much if we had seen some progress on updating drainage and repairing our streets. But we haven't. We haven't seen much progress because the first seven years of the drainage fees were earmarked to pay off existing City debt. You'll note nothing about that was mentioned in the video.

So there's no progress to be seen for Houstonian's considerable investment via the drainage fee. In fact, you may even have noticed the City's yearly district Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) meetings were renamed to Town Hall Meetings this year. Why? Because there are no new infrastructure capital improvement projects to discuss - none are being considered. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It's difficult to sell our beautiful city as a fantastic location for business and quality of life when our worldwide claim to fame is our incredible flooding problem, traffic, and the very poor condition of our streets and roads. One can only hope that our elected leaders will begin to wake up to the fact that Houston is becoming stagnant due to the ever-increasing cost and regulation with no quality of life improvements to show for Houstonian's increased tax burden. #tb

Silent Majority or Vocal Minority?

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:22:00 +0000

Silent majority is a term coined by President Richard Nixon in 1969. He was referring to the vast number of Americans who didn't participate in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, who didn't join in the counterculture conversation, and who did not participate in public dialogue on public policy. Nixon rightly saw this group of Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority, a small group of individuals who frequently and strongly share their opinions.

Sound familiar?

Today in our social media-consumed world, the vocal minority and their issues are garnering a lot of attention. It's these folks who are creating a loud, steady narrative against pretty much anything and everything they don't agree with.

Looking back over the past 18 months, we've witnessed march after march. They've marched for women's rights, science (global warming), against President Trump, and most recently they marched for gun control.

Unlike the upheaval of the 1960's, a time in which there was actually some stuff to warrant a bit of civil unrest, today's protest issues are perplexing in that they seemed to be fueled more by anger and less by civic responsibility.

So I asked myself, who is driving this rage? And who is financially capable of organizing these marches (complete with website, press releases, logo'd backdrops and printed collateral)? Who is
financially capable of organizing and launching a social media campaign in a matter of days? My guess was that it was not the unemployed 30-somethings in their parent's basements.

In an effort to discover the answers to my questions, I took a gander at the March for Our Lives website (sounds very dramatic, urgent and exciting), and it was pretty clear who was driving the agenda. Here's their welcoming message:

"Be counted today, at the March For Our Lives in Washington DC and 800+ sibling marches across the globe.

Be counted this November. And if you’ve already registered to vote – register your friends.

Be counted next week, and the next, by continuing to show up and speak truth to power. Demand action. Join us in this Fight for our Lives."

Um, it doesn't say anything about the gun issue or why we must march for our lives. It's a voter registration propaganda campaign. Gosh, who ever would have guessed?

Then I dug a little bit deeper and hit the "donate" button. Actually, I was wondering why an organic social movement of outrage would need a "donate" button. You know, given that thousands of people felt so strongly about these issues they took to the streets of their own motivation and volition without any prompting. Low and behold I found that the donations go to the March for Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) social welfare (labor union or political action committee) organization. The fine print: "Contributions or gifts to March for Our Lives Action Fund are not deductible for federal income tax purposes as charitable contributions. All donations are made to support March for Our Lives Action Fund's general mission and aren't designated for any specific political candidate or race." For legal reasons I won't venture a guess as to which "organization" actually gets the money, but I have my suspicions.

Reflecting on all of this marchiness, I can safely say that no issue, regardless of how strongly I felt about it, has ever compelled to me to grab a sign and march down the street (although it would probably be good exercise). While certainly rarely silent, I guess I will continue to be an active part of the "silent majority". Instead of screaming from the rooftops and irritating my social media friends with political rhetoric and hyperbole, I along with millions of others like me will stage my protest at the ballot box. The rest is just noise. #tb

You May be a Russian Co-Conspirator if ...

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:15:00 +0000

... you have a Twitter account and lean towards conservative politics.

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that my personal politics tend towards the conservative side of the aisle. That said, even I was surprised to discover that I was part of the Russian hacking conspiracy to elect Donald Trump. Who knew? Certainly not me, until the following arrived in my inbox Saturday evening:

Dear Tammy,

As part of our recent work to understand Russian-linked activities on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, we identified and suspended a number of accounts that were potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russian government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency.

Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing you because we have reason to believe that you either followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked content from these accounts during the election period. This is purely for your own information purposes, and is not related to a security concern for your account.

We are sharing this information so that you can learn more about these accounts and the nature of the Russian propaganda effort. You can see examples of content from these suspended accounts on our blog if you're interested.

Now let's pause right there and take a look at examples of the offending Russian bot tweets:

They are scandalous! These tweets were posted by Russian operatives posing as normal Americans with names like Crystal and Pamela and the GOP? I can't believe that this red-blooded American patriot was bamboozled by what is so obviously a Russian plot to take over the world! I mean look at those memes; it's so clear to me now. They scream Russian takeover, practically dripping in hammers and sickles.

My family and I enjoyed some good (laughs) dialogue about this over breakfast Sunday morning. The question that kept coming to the surface during the conversation was how on earth do the owners of a social media platform in which everyone can participate (even anonymously using an unbelievable alias like Pamela Moore), believe that these memes are going to cause someone to run out and campaign for Donald Trump? I'd be willing to bet that anyone on the planet who liked or shared one of the Russian tweets was already inclined to like President Trump. Just a crazy theory on my part.

Here's the rest of the message if you're interested:

People look to Twitter for useful, timely, and appropriate information. We are taking active steps to stop malicious accounts and Tweets from spreading, and we are determined to keep ahead of the tactics of bad actors. For example, in recent months we have developed new techniques to identify accounts manipulating our platform, have improved our process for challenging suspicious accounts, and have introduced new measures designed to identify and take action on coordinated malicious activity. In 2018, we are building on these improvements. Our blog also contains more information about these efforts.

People come to Twitter to see what's happening in the world. We are committed to making it the best place to do that and to being transparent with the people who use and trust our platform.

Twitter

This from a social media platform that has deteriorated into a cesspool of partisan hate and name-calling? According to their blog, Twitter identified 3,814 IRA-linked accounts which posted 175,993 Tweets, approximately 8.4% of which were election-related. 8.4%!!!!! Let that sink in.

I view this email as an attempted scare tactic to the 800,000+/- folks who received it (big brother IS watching). Either that or they want you to be horrified you are a horrible American for participating in the enormous 8.4% problem of the Russian conspiracy.

Insert eye roll here. #tb

Tax Reform Bill Analysis and Impact to CRE

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:27:00 +0000

On December 19, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a comprehensive tax reform package, H.R. 1/S. 1, by a vote of 227-203. The bill was a compromise struck between the House and Senate’s previous tax bills. The Senate passed the compromise bill the next day, December 20. H.R. 1 the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” is a sweeping tax rewrite will have ripple effects for decades through our economy. The outlook of this final bill is positive for our industry. Real estate will continue to be taxed on an economic basis. There are both wins and losses—and, depending on how your business is leveraged and structured, new options. Overall, we believe that these provisions will preserve the long-term health and strength of the commercial real estate industry.

Details of Interest Deductibility: A Closer Look at Your Options for Deducting Interest and the Alternative Depreciation Schedule.

Source: BOMA International

Tax Reform Has Passed – Baker Botts' Explanation of What it Means to You

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:26:00 +0000

The Baker Botts tax team has prepared an analysis of the recently enacted tax reform act (formerly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the “Act”) from several different angles and from the perspective of several different industries. Please click on the various links below to learn more about the Act’s impact on particular industries. Baker Botts will also be hosting several webinars in January to provide additional thoughts and analysis on the Act.

Impact on Taxpayers with International Operations: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on Master Limited Partnerships: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on the Energy Sector: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on the Technology Sector: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on Private Equity: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on Renewable Energy: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on Real Estate Industry: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on Financially Troubled Corporations: To read the full update, click here.

Impact on Executive Compensation: To read the full update, click here.

Webinars

Tax Webinar: Impact of Tax Reform on Private Equity: Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Tax Webinar: Impact of Tax Reform on MLPs: Thursday, January 11, 2018

Tax Webinar: Impact of Tax Reform on Real Estate Industry: Tuesday, January 16, 2018

For more information, visit bakerbotts.com.

Astromania!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:02:00 +0000

Here I am the day after the Houston Astros victory that brought the first-ever baseball World Championship to Houston: I can't stop smiling and I can't stop talking about it. I feel like a kid at Christmas time.

I like it. The euphoria is real and there is so much joy in Houston today. Thank you Houston @Astros for bringing us this much-appreciated occasion to celebrate. It feels good.

#HoustonProud #HoustonStrong #earnedhistory

#tb

Mayor Loses More Than Tax Rate

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:48:00 +0000

If credibility counts for anything, Mayor Turner has suffered another significant setback. With the City Council voting against his proposed tax increase 2-15 yesterday, it sends a clear message to the Mayor about sticking to his word.

Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

Less than a month ago, Mayor Turner told Governor Abbott, "Because of what you have given today, let me say there will be no need for me to raise the property tax rate, and there will be no need for a public hearing on Monday. There is no reason to activate the emergency provision of the revenue cap that we are operating under. We will continue to operate under the revenue cap without having to exercise the emergency provision." But not really.

In spite of what he said, Mayor Turner chose to propose not lowering the tax rate to meet the requirements of the revenue cap.

The whole tax increase dialogue has been a tad baffling to this student of politics. I keep asking myself a myriad of questions; Is the mayor getting really bad advice somewhere? What happened to the love story mayor we had last year? Why seek to raise taxes on citizens who have already taken such severe hits on their financial positions when you are already taking in record revenues?

Those are a few questions I'll probably never get the answers to. But this one thing I do know for sure: Mayor Turner's credibility has suffered. Saying one thing and doing another will have that affect every single time. #tb

Brand Destruction 101

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 20:22:00 +0000

If the customer is always right (and they are), we have to wonder what in the heck the NFL owners are thinking.

The events of this past weekend are like a primer on how to lose a customer in 10 days (or less). Injecting political narrative into what many consider to be a "politics free" entertainment zone, will mean serious decline for the NFL brand. Even my beloved Cowboys, whose owner said he would fire anyone kneeling for the anthem, managed to look like idiots kneeling arm in arm before the anthem. The entire situation is very perplexing.

If you assume that half of your customers are liberal and half are conservative, any political statement you make runs the risk of alienating at least half of your customer base. Witnessing the vast majority of sports fans standing for the anthem, one could assume they are patriots: they love the flag, the military, police and firemen, and the USA. Therefore, I find it surprising the NFL owners aren't catching on that all of this nonsense has the potential to literally destroy their brand.

Gone are the guardians of the gridiron. Here are sniveling, whining, millionaire, hypocrites blathering on about oppression. Individuals who surprisingly cannot even verbalize what it is they are protesting.Can you imagine this kind of behavior in your office? Almost laughable really. Come on in, take a knee for capitalism or whatever wrong was done to you by whomever. Because taking a knee is the answer for sure. Everyone will feel your pain if you take a knee.

The owners and the players need to get a clue that 1) no one cares or believes they are oppressed; and 2) they are driving away the majority of their base and it will only serve to further destroy their brand. Remember, the customer is always right, and if you are selling something the customer isn't buying, you will lose and lose big. #tb

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:17:00 +0000

At last night's hearing on the enormous tax increase proposed my Mayor Turner, he repeated asked Gov. Greg Abbott to have state government use part of the Texas Economic Stabilization Fund to aid Houston’s flood recovery. The letter can be viewed here.

Per Mayor Turner, and several other Council Members who seemed well-rehearsed in the "give us your money" narrative, using part of the $10 billion in Rainy Day Fund “is appropriate for response to a natural disaster such as Harvey that wreaked significant damage and caused local governments to incur unanticipated costs far beyond their budgets,” the mayor said.

In attempting to change the narrative and shift attention away from the very large proposed tax increase (that the Mayor chose to announce in the middle of recovery from the greatest natural disaster to hit our City, and, without a shred of information as to why, and if, a tax increase is needed), Mayor Turner added that without aid from the state fund, the city will be forced to increase its property tax rate on a temporary, emergency basis for 12 months to help pay its recovery bills.

The push on all of this is that the City of Houston has the resources to meet its financial obligations - without a tax increase. Attempting to point a finger at the State as if the proposed tax increase is their fault is ridiculous.

And yet, Council Members Boykins and Laster repeated the mantra over and over that the state owes the City of Houston this money. We need to remember that Houston was not the only city impacted significantly by Hurricane Harvey. In response I would suggest they look back only a few short months to see how that whole "bully the legislature" move worked out for HISD. #tb

Adding Insult to Injury

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:49:00 +0000

Parts of Houston are still under water, sewage is creating a health hazard in west Houston, the contents of flooded homes lines thousands of streets, the stench of rotting garbage hangs heavy in the air for lack of debris pickup, and our Mayor proposes a tax increase.

Yes, it is our Mayor's desire to collect additional taxes from the homes and businesses that, because of Hurricane Harvey are already being forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars they don't have to recover.

Suffice to say this is, at best, exceptionally bad timing.

Regardless of the wisdom behind the decision and the timing, the item is on the City Council Agenda for consideration tomorrow.

Some food for thought for our City leaders:

Consider what massive and ongoing valuation increases are already doing to your tax base before you pass a huge tax increase. People and businesses are leaving town - and they won't come back. As you continue to burden those remaining with higher and higher taxes, they will leave as well.
Is it possible to know what the costs are yet just 20ish days after the storm? Isn't this a bit premature?

Perhaps consideration of areas of savings within a very large bureaucracy of the 52 city departments is in order. What services can your overburdened taxpayers do without? Do we need street festivals and an innovation department when we're going broke? How many press and communications "directors" and special assistants are required to handle city business?

Prior to voting on such an enormous tax increase (and BTW, when have you ever in your lifetime seen a temporary tax increase?), Mayor Turner and City Council should show that they have sought to create efficiencies within the city bureaucracy, eliminate waste (see below note on flooded cars), and provide the taxpayers with detailed line-item expenses from the storm along with what reimbursements they anticipate receiving.

I feel awful for my fellow Houstonians still struggling to recover from the ravages of Harvey. To add this additional burden is adding insult to injury. #tb

P.S. Next time we expect a flooding event, the City should move its vehicles out of underground parking garages ... just sayin'. A little planning could save a lot of money.

Joke's on Us

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:12:00 +0000

Tuesday evening I sat in stunned disbelief when I read Representative Dan Huberty's Facebook post that indicated the House of Representatives had adjourned sine die a full 27 hours before the special session of the 85th Texas Legislature ended. The adjournment left several important bills to die in the Senate. Included among the dead was the bill we've been working on for five years, and which we've spent over a quarter million dollars advocating for: SB1 property tax reform and relief. The failure of the House and Senate to come together over the tax rollback rate caused not only the loss of much needed improvements in property tax transparency, but the loss of the time and money of a lot of concerned citizens as well.

Further reading on the House happenings of Tuesday evening provided more of the story on House Speaker Joe Straus and the battle over school finance vs. property tax reform. The adjournment was a move to punish the Senate for slashing Huberty's school finance bill. Yes, dear readers, these are the actions of the grown men in charge of our tax dollars.

While SB1 could have provided stability and uniformity in Texas' property tax system, slowed tax increases, improved the arbitration process, etc., its death is not as important as how it died. Instead of choosing to work together for Texans, House members took the path of obstructionism, simply because they didn't get their way.

A young lady who works here at BOMA said about the fiasco: "As a taxpayer, I feel like a lot of money was just wasted because of egos." I concur. The entire special session, much like the regular session, has been a waste of time and taxpayer money. Why? Because the girls and boys we elected to represent us can't seem to get along and play nice. It's rather embarrassing for Texas really.

Most disturbing about this situation is the attitude our elected leaders are taking towards the taxpayer. Instead of slapping us in the face with ongoing childish shenanigans, they should be paying attention to a silent majority that is weary of the bureaucratic stalemates we've witnessed this year - at the Texas and U.S. Capitols alike.

As Governor Abbott considers a calling another special session, seems to me it would be a waste of time and money until the culture in Austin changes to one of willingness to work towards resolution instead of throwing up roadblocks. #tb

Tantrums are for Two Year Olds

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:39:00 +0000

As we continue our legislative activities through the special session, it is especially disappointing as a Texas taxpayer to see grown men and women finding greater importance in who does what, rather than acting on issues that are best for Texas.

Yesterday, our Texas BOMA contingent visited with our state lawmakers and it was evident that the mood in Austin during the special session is identical to the mood during the regular session. It's not about what gets done, it's all about who gets credit (or not) for doing it. It's about saying no to each other, regardless of the issue, plain and simple.

Since House leadership has called the special session a pile of manure, one can only surmise that the current culture in the House of Representatives is emanating from the top. I don't know who came up with the catchy "sunset and sine die" campaign (a maneuver intended to pass the one sunset bill, adjourn and go home), but that any energy at all was put forth on such a childish endeavor is shocking.

That said, in the House there are committee meetings going on with no anticipation of passing anything. And in the Senate, we have Lt. Governor Dan Patrick passing legislation at break-neck speed which is apparently an affront to the House.

It's disheartening to see grown men and women who are elected by the taxpayers, and working at the expense of taxpayers, so out of touch with the life outside of the Austin bubble. We're used to that kind of detachment from some of our Washington D.C. folks, but it's not been the case so much in Texas. What is evident to the outsider looking in, is these folks don't seem to understand that the taxpayers (i.e. voters) are watching what is happening, and it's pretty darned disappointing.

I've heard many rationalizations for why this stalemate is perfectly okay. As a taxpayer, I think it's really not okay. I'm not pointing fingers or appointing blame to anyone - my point is that they all need to come to the table and do what's best for Texans.

At the end of the day voting records will speak for themselves and rationalizations won't be worth a hill of beans. #tb

Who Needs State and Federal Funds? Not Houston.

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:57:00 +0000

And so it goes in the annals of Houston politics, city council members (pressured by Democrat state lawmakers, the ACLU, and big labor unions) are once again making a bold political statement. This time, instead of bathroom regulations (thank you Annise Parker), they have chosen another political hot button and have joined a lawsuit with Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso County and El Cenizo (where?) suing the State of Texas over Senate Bill 4 (SB4).
SB4 is an anti-sanctuary cities measure that was signed into law by Governor Abbott which takes effect September 1. SB4 allows local law enforcement to question the immigration status of people they legally detain or arrest, and punishes officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration agents by turning over illegal immigrants.

Before I state the obvious about what an incredible waste of city resources this is; I'll state the other obvious - SB4 simply calls for enforcement of existing federal law which many cities (including Houston) have chosen to ignore. SB4 goes a step further to provide financial sanctions against cities who don't comply with the law. Houston stands to lose $314 million in federal and state grants for continuing its sanctuary city policies.

Mayor Turner stated, “We are a diverse city, we are a very welcoming city, we have every right to protect Houstonians. Houstonians are expecting us to stand up and protect their interest.” I agree, that is indeed what we expect - stand up and protect ALL of our interests. In a city facing severe financial challenges, one has to ask, what are you thinking with this move? Would being a rule of law city be such a horrible thing you think you need to sue the state to prevent it? A lot of us are out here watching and shaking our heads.

Governor Abbott recently stated in an op-ed published by the San Antonio Express-News, “Here is the truth: Regardless of your immigration status, if you have not committed a crime and you are not subject to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer, you have nothing to fear about the change in Texas law.”

Let's face it, big change is uncomfortable. You can't turn a ship that has been sailing off in the wrong direction for 30+ years overnight. You can however start turning the wheel a bit at a time to get things moving in the right direction.

Brenda Stardig, Dave Martin, Steve Le, Greg Travis, Mike Knox and Michael Kubosh voted against Houston joining the suit. Jack Christie vacated the room and did not vote on the measure.

Houston should be a welcoming and diverse city that follows the rule of law. Here's hoping a savvy judge stops this ridiculous fear-mongering partisan political grandstanding effort in its tracks and stops the bleeding of wasted taxpayer dollars. #tb

War Against Cities? What About the War Against Taxpayers?

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:05:00 +0000

Oh the mayor's are wailing again. Austin Mayor Steve Adler went as far as to proclaim that Governor Greg Abbott is waging war against Texas' cities with the 20 items placed on the special session call.

A war on cities is one way to look at it.

A different approach would be to see that Governor Abbott sees through the constant money grab and non-accountability municipalities have been forcing on Texas taxpayers for years.To that I say, thank you Governor Abbott. While Texas municipalities are gnashing their teeth and telling everyone who will listen that they don't have enough money; the message in return needs to be what you don't have enough of is accountability to the taxpayers. Taxpayers who would like to see increased operational efficiency and transparency prior to being asked for more money. Just a thought.

When the Texas Municipal League (TML) screams that local control is being ripped out of the hands of municipalities, what they mean is local control is being given to the taxpayers. And they don't like that one little bit. They went as far as to call the measures in the special session an "all out assault". And, based on the testimony they organized during regular session, taxpayers actually voting on tax rate increases that exceed a particular threshold is apparently the kiss of death for public safety across our great state.

The TML would love for you to believe that should SB2 pass there will be no firefighters to battle blazes and provide emergency services; police will vanish from the face of the earth and chaos in the streets will ensue. Gloom and doom people! Don't you see it? If we as taxpayers are actually allowed to approve tax increases on ourselves, and the government would have to prove up the need for more dollars, the world as we know it will effectively end.

Scary.

Support SB2! #tb

Don't Fall for the Old Bait and Switch - Keep The Revenue Cap!

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Tue, 16 May 2017 13:58:00 +0000

Guest blog by Bill King

King: It's not a revenue cap; it's a property tax cap, and it should remain

Mayor Sylvester Turner, as candidate and now in office, has declared his intent to ask voters to remove the "revenue cap" that he - and most media reports - have incorrectly characterized.

There is no cap on city tax revenues. There is, however, a cap on how much the city can charge in property taxes every year. This distinction is important because property taxes only make up about 25 percent of the city's total revenues. Under the City Charter, that is the only source of revenue that is capped. There is absolutely no cap on 75 percent of the city's revenues.

And even to describe the charter limitation as a "cap" on property taxes is somewhat misleading because the charter still allows the property tax collections to increase every year by the sum of inflation and population growth. And increase, they have.
Since the charter amendment was enacted, the city's property tax receipts have increased by 70 percent, rising from $646 million to $1.1 billion. The average increase since 2005 has been just under 5 percent. Twice since the charter was amended, the city has benefited from double-digit increases. For the last three years, the average increase was almost 7 percent.

And, according to the city's most recent monthly report, property tax revenues so far this year are up an eye-popping 15 percent. Eventually, that number will come down some due to refunds from appeals of property appraisals, but the city is still projecting an increase of more than 5 percent even with these refunds. I feel certain that the city has overestimated the amount of refunds; it is a little embarrassing to ask voters to repeal the property tax cap in a year when the property taxes are increasing by double digits.

Turner will inevitably make the case that he must be able to raise your taxes to pay for more police officers since everyone knows we need more officers. But you might recall that we have seen this movie before. In 2006, the city asked voters to increase the property tax cap by $90 million, which was supposed to be dedicated entirely to public safety. So, what did we get for that $90 million increase? A whopping increase in the HPD head count of 212 (a 3 percent increase). And incredibly, the Fire Department actually has 244 fewer employees than it did in 2006. I do not know what the $90 million was spent on, but it certainly was not spent on increasing the size of our public safety personnel. The city did, however, somehow find the money to increase the head count outside police and fire by more than 1,000 employees.

But here is the real kicker: The provision in the City Charter that sets out the limitation on property taxes begin with these words:

"The City Council shall not, without voter approval ..."

In other words, anytime the city administration and City Council believe they must increase taxes by more than the cap, all they have to do is ask your permission. In the 12 years since the property tax cap was adopted, City Council has never asked voters for more money.
What Turner wants is the unrestricted ability to increase your property taxes. So far, the cap has had relatively little effect on the city or taxpayers. But it has stopped City Council from indiscriminately increasing your property taxes year after year. And therein lies its true value.

Last year, Chicago increased its property taxes by more than 20 percent and plans to increase them by another 30 percent over the next four years.

That will never happen in Houston - as long as we have the property tax cap.

King is a former mayor of Kemah.

As submitted to Houston Chronicle Outlook.

One More Push ....

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Wed, 03 May 2017 13:17:00 +0000

Make the Best of a Bad Situation: Vote YES on Prop 1

noreply@blogger.com (Tammy Betancourt) — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:43:00 +0000

A FOR vote makes the best of a bad situation for the Houston Independent School District

Editorial | Houston Chronicle | April 21, 2017 | 10:35PM ET

We don't like going back on our word - it's all we've got, and we do our best to give it to you straight. But new circumstances surrounding school finance in Texas, particularly as they apply to the Houston Independent School District, require us to take back an earlier recommendation we made to allow HISD to "purchase attendance credits."

The arcane ballot language may have you already scratching your head. It sheds little light on the issue, but bear with us. This issue is important to Houston's students and your tax bill.

In November, we urged HISD voters to cast ballots AGAINST purchasing attendance credits, and voters agreed.

Now, HISD voters are being asked to come back to the polls on May 6 to respond to the same question, and no doubt are wondering why.

The answer is dizzyingly complex, but the choice is simple. In November we urged you to hold your nose and vote AGAINST on Proposition 1. On May 6, we urge you to hold your nose and vote FOR. Early voting begins Monday and ends May 2.

As in November, May voters have to decide between two lousy choices - either authorize HISD to write a big check to the state government every year for the foreseeable future, or give away a huge chunk of Houston's tax base forever.

Last November, we recommended voting AGAINST writing the big check, opting instead to have the state shift some of our most valuable commercial properties - like the Galleria - to the tax base of a "property-poor" school district. In vain, perhaps, we hoped such an election outcome would get the attention of some big property owners and maybe, just maybe, that of our state lawmakers.

The way the state funds public education and its increasing reliance on local property taxes remains a morass. Under current state law, the boost in HISD tax revenue from rising property values require it to send some of those local tax dollars to the state for distribution to districts considered property-poor. So no matter how HISD voters cast their ballots, that unfortunately will not change. What has changed since November, however, is the size of payment HISD will owe the state. Under an arrangement with the Texas Education Agency that requires HISD to put the question to voters again, the payment has shrunk by more than half to about $77.5 million - significantly less than the estimated $162 million the district was facing in November. Future payments have been reduced as well.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers finally are talking about overhauling the zany machine we use to finance our schools. It needs to be overhauled, as the Texas Supreme Court asserted last year, even as it found the financing system to be constitutional.

At the heart of the problem is a financing trick that the state uses to shortchange schools. In districts that experience fast growth in property value, the trick works this way: As property values rise locally, taxpayers pay more. But the higher taxes ultimately don't benefit local districts or even poorer districts because the state then turns around and sends less funding to those districts.

A bill now under consideration in the Texas House addresses school funding. It's a meaningful effort that would bring more dollars to districts, but the conversation about school funding suffers the same shortsightedness that has dogged the Legislature for decades.

Still, the hope for reform remains, and meanwhile, HISD voters are stuck with the bad choice. Whatever the outcome May 6, HISD - which serves primarily disadvantaged students - loses funding for teachers and the classroom.

If AGAINST voters prevail, the district will lose future tax collections on detached properties. This matters in particular because some of those tax revenues are used to pay back the district's bond debt. As more and more commercial properties are detached, a larger percentage of the responsibility to fund public education would shift to homeowners and remaining business owners.

A FOR vote won't fix school finance. But it makes the best of a bad situation.