COMMENT OF THE DAY: SPILL! “I’m looking forward to the dedicated thread on Swamplot about the Renew Houston proposal. Until then, I’ll keep my comments to myself . . .” [Random Poster, commenting on Swamplot Street Sleuths: Too Many Bumps]
Sign up for the Newsletter
I’m guessing that this is the dedicated thread. In that case…
As SL noted in the base thread, Renew Houston is, as far as I can discern, being primarily pushed by those who would economically benefit the most from it: engineers and construction companies. (That being said, it is mighty difficult–if not impossible–to figure out who is actually behind this program.) Who, I suppose, would now have a dedicated source of revenue to play with. Revenue that, within time, would likely become completely unaccountable and quite separated from its original intended purpose.
And on the revenue front, the entire concept of linking land size to a monthly drainage fee charge (on one’s water bill, no less!) is ridiculous. How does the size of one’s lot–particularly when the fee charged based on the size of the same does not take into account what is actually on the lot itself–have any connection to the flooding issues of Houston?
Plus, the numbers don’t add up. As has been reported elsewhere, Renew Houston’s alleged “$5 per household” tax (err..”fee”) does not come close to the amount that Renew Houston claims the program will generate.
Additionally, why should any fees be charged to those who are not the ones creating additional “strain” or demands on the drainage system? Shouldn’t such a fee be charged to those engaged in the (presumably new) development and construction that is causing the (additional or otherwise) drainage problems? Similarly, why should those who live in areas that do not suffer from drainage problems pay to help out those who–quite voluntarily, I might add–do? Asking those who are not contributing the drainage problems to effectively subsidize those who are is a bit rich, in my view.
Read the ordinance again. The $5 tax is only a portion of the dedicated revenue. Developers will pay a hefty portion from impact fees.
Also, if you are against it, maybe you should suggest another alternative. Currently, the allotted budget for roads and drainage is being used to pay off bonds leaving little money for road and drainage projects. Currently, the city has been robbing the water and wastewater treatment funds to pay for road which is completely unsustainable.
The concept of a dedicated fund has been done in other areas with success. Louisiana has done this on a statewide level. The gas taxes used to pay for roads went into the general fund and was pilfered by the legislature to pay for everything else. Roads went to crap with no money. In the 90s, then governor Foster campaigned on and pushed through a constitutional change that sent all gas taxes to its on fund to only be used for transportation. The states roads have been getting increasingly better since then.
Personally, I don’t like the tax increase on my water bill, but as of now, there are no other solutions and no-one in city hall will ever attempt to solve this problem. It’s not politically sexy to talk about roads, drainage, and adding a tax all in one. Drainage only becomes politically popular when people flood, then it quickly fades away.
A positive aspect of the charter amendment is that is sunsets itself after 19 years requiring it to be revisited in the 20th year.
From kjb434:
A positive aspect of the charter amendment is that is sunsets itself after 19 years requiring it to be revisited in the 20th year.
_______________________________
So if the taxpayers get hit instead of the developers, the taxpayers will have to wait and see if City Council will “sunset” it in the 20th year?
Our previous mayors and City Council never learned the term “long-range planning” and instead concentrated on making the insiders rich so they would keep contributing to their campaigns.
Our current mayor and City Council seems to be following the example.
Long-range planning does not mean sticking it to the taxpayers every time a problem comes up because of the lack of long-range planning.
Everyone wants zoning by ordinance. In reality it will apply to everyone except the insiders. Who will continue to build where they want and continue to build what they want and not care about long-term effects. Only short-term profit.
I’ve written my council member regarding Renew Houston and my concerns with it but have not heard anything back beyond a “thank you for contacting us” message. Also, last I read, the mayor is still officially undecided but is leaning toward supporting Renew Houston as she is not seeing much outcry yet about it.
My concern is that by having this done-and-done fund, there is no appropriation made in the city budget for these projects, the money is just automatically taken from everyone. Thus, there is no oversight on what and where these projects get approved and funded. What if no Renew Houston board members live in your area? You can bet whatever work is done will be elsewhere…
By keeping the approval and funding of such infrastructure projects as a city council purview(which is why we elected them, right?) we keep city council on the hook of accountability via the ballot box(and Wayne Dolcefino exposes, haha).
I know times are tough and a lot of the infrastructure in this country and our city needs fixing up, but handing authority and money over to yet another new entity to hopefully get things done is simply irresponsible. Perhaps Renew Houston should re-mission itself as an advocacy and awareness group, so that such projects do draw the public interest and support, and not be a cover for a bunch of construction firm owners who seek to line their own pockets with guaranteed work for decades to come with no oversight.
Matt,
Again, read the ordinance itself. The developers will have to pay impact fees. The $5 dollars per household won’t get the planned $150 million. The rest will be levied against developers and new construction.
Also, don’t make the horrible assumption that everyone wants zoning by ordinance. It’s always failed when put to a vote and would likely fail again.
Also, if the “developers and insiders” didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have a city. ALL of our neighborhoods (even the urban grid ones) were built by developers.
SL,
Just because the money is in a separate fund, doesn’t mean that the projects don’t go through the same approvals by council and the mayor. They will still have to authorize spending of the money. It is just they can’t spend it on anything but road and drainage. All this is a funding mechanism, no other processes change from this. CIP projects still move forward as planned and go through all the same channels.
kjb434,
Thanks for the clarification. I’m not in construction, city gov or any of that. Still, setting up what now sounds like a surtax still doesnt sound like the way to go, IMO. I think the Renew Houston guys are still just out to establish a fund that will always be there to give them work. If so, where is the one for (insert your/my line of work here). IMO, appropriations should still be made out of the city budget just like all the other hands out wanting money, why give any one interest or concern a multi-decade guarantee? It’s like these guys are trying to set up their own retirement fund. Again, maybe Renew Houston should be out trying to make infrastructure improvement look sexy so pepople will be asking of their council members why isn’t this stuff getting done in lieu of (name something you hate)?
“Read the ordinance again.”
First off, it isn’t an “ordinance.” Not yet, anyway. At best, it is a proposed ordinance.
—
“Also, if you are against it, maybe you should suggest another alternative.”
Ah, the old “if you don’t like my idea, you should have an alternative one or just shut up” line of reasoning. Never mind that sometimes having no alternative (i.e., the status quo) is better that the alternative being pushed, but no matter…
So here are a few alternatives:
1) Stop new development.
2) If you must have new development, make the new development pay for any needed improvements to drainage systems impacted by the new development (i.e., don’t come after those who are already living there).
3) Raze half of this town and leave it for green space and drainage “improvements.”
4) Reward those who don’t pave over half of their land and ultimately cause more drainage problems.
5) Consider drainage problems and work to solve them _before_ constructing something, not after the fact. (Along this line of thought, why are those who will likely benefit from the proposed ordinance in bed with those who have essentially caused the need for the proposed ordinance in the first place?)
—-
“The concept of a dedicated fund has been done in other areas with success. Louisiana has done this on a statewide level.”
If Louisiana is your model of how this sort of thing, or virtually anything, should be done, then I want absolutely no part of what you are offering.
—
“Personally, I don’t like the tax increase on my water bill, but as of now, there are no other solutions . . .”
Well, yeah, there are. You may not like them, or think that they are practical or reasonable, but don’t think for a second that there are “no other solutions.”
—
“A positive aspect of the charter amendment is that is sunsets itself after 19 years requiring it to be revisited in the 20th year.”
That’s not a positive aspect. That’s simply making a half-choice now and kicking the can down the road later so that others can deal with the consequences.
Count me in the against rescrew, er renew Houston camp. These people simply cannot help creating bigger and bigger government. There is so much freakin waste in our local government it is horrible. There should not be a push for simply another tax upon property owners and developers, but a moratorium on additional spending, as well as a mandatory series of spending cuts. Yes there are infrastructure repairs and improvements that need to be made. Cut spending and make city employees accountable for their performance.
From kjb434:
Matt,
Again, read the ordinance itself. The developers will have to pay impact fees. The $5 dollars per household won’t get the planned $150 million. The rest will be levied against developers and new construction.
Also, don’t make the horrible assumption that everyone wants zoning by ordinance. It’s always failed when put to a vote and would likely fail again.
Also, if the “developers and insiders†didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have a city. ALL of our neighborhoods (even the urban grid ones) were built by developers.
SL,
Just because the money is in a separate fund, doesn’t mean that the projects don’t go through the same approvals by council and the mayor. They will still have to authorize spending of the money. It is just they can’t spend it on anything but road and drainage. All this is a funding mechanism, no other processes change from this. CIP projects still move forward as planned and go through all the same channels.
____________________________
$5 per household now. How much in year 5, 10,15?
I think you need to stop to think about “zoning by ordinance.” It is zoning by City Council. And the voters have no say in the matter. “Hi, ho, hi, ho, it’s off to court we go….”
The developers who developed our neighborhoods developed our neighborhoods. The developers who are redeveloping our neighborhoods are destroying them.
And I suspect that will continue even in the “protected historic districts” depending on who the developer is.
i don’t like the idea of it, but it’s important to keep in mind that many folks are severely impacted by drainage issues and horrible roads. Making new developments pick up the tab would not address the issue as i imagine many of these folks are in low-income areas that see little or no new development.
i agree, if you don’t like it then propose an alternative because it is something that needs to be addressed at some point.
i think it’s retarded that we haven’t at least raised the gas tax yet, so i’d like to see that happen and then we can move on from there after seeing how much money would be pulled from that.
New development anywhere in the city would contribute to the fund which can be utilized in any neighborhood.
The easy answer is that the city official need to grow a set an remove wastes and layoff the bloated staff that works in city government. This is my preferable answer to this. I realize that this is pretty much a pipe dream.
The $5 value is fixed for the 20-years. Properties that are not single family residential will pay more based on parameter of acreage and level of development. Obviously you wouldn’t make residents in the Acres Homes area north of the loop pay a massive fee for having a small home on a really large lot.
Renew Houston lost me the day I received their BS flyer in the mail. It did not identify who is behind the effort, details of what they are proposing, or why whatever they want to do must be done now and on my dime. It was simply a utopian piece of propaganda against “flooding.” It made it sound like signing their petition will make flooding go away forever. Just like a magic spell.
I consider myself well-educated, and I read and re-read the flyer 3 times trying to figure out exactly what the flyer meant, and couldn’t grasp the intention. My partner did the same when he got home from work later that day. All we could determine is that someone wants us to sign a petition against flooding. Simple, right?
Ever since, I am anti Renew Houston until I’m given reason to be for them.
@kjb434 – in federally-funded projects, “no action” is required to be treated as a possible alternative in every case during the environmental impact assessment (what I do). Just because someone mailed me propaganda with one vague option to mitigate flooding, doesn’t mean I must support their new tax, nor does it mean I am being unreasonable.
Furthermore, I am staunchly opposed to any more destruction of streams through Houston-style flood control. Wide, concrete chutes do not provide any ecological, aesthetic, or water conservation functions. They simply rush water to the bay. Why can’t we step back out of the flood plain and let nature do what it wants there? Eleanor Tinsley Park is the closest thing we have left to a native Houston bayou system, but even there the whole area was bulldozed clean in the 60’s and the city keeps trees and brushy areas to a minimum.
Superdave,
I’m not defending the measure. Just explaining it.
As a conservative, I completely disagree with the measure to increase taxes on the citizens when the city is awash in cash if they only spent it wisely.
Even though I’m against the measure, I prefer people debate it based on what the proposed charter amendment actually says (or doesn’t expressly say).
The group pushing it does bring up some valid points (that don’t typically make the public meetings).
If you look at Houston, you’ll notice that a large portion of the city was built in the 60s and 70s. Most of the neighborhoods are curb and gutter with concrete streets and storm sewers. The design life of typical residential concrete streets and storm sewers is 50 years. This essentially means that moving into the next decade that miles of streets and drainage system will be exceeding their design life. This doesn’t mean it all has to be replaced. It does mean that the likelihood of more failures occurring will be more prevalent.
City doesn’t have any financial standing to be able to deal with this in the coming future.
Glad to know you are in the EIA business. I you know Houston, the city doesn’t do any drainage work in the bayous and streams in the region. Only HCFCD and USACE work in this arena. HCFCD is completely against concreting streams. They are also working on large scale study that may involve removing concrete on some streams also.
Your Houston-style flood control as you call hasn’t been practiced since the late 60s and early 70s.
“Your Houston-style flood control as you call hasn’t been practiced since the late 60s and early 70s.”
Eerie that I was just going to say the exact same thing. Anyway, things have changed regarding flood control a lot since that time period. Most of Harris County no longer uses groundwater for their drinking water supply like it used to; it was this practice that led to (if I remember correctly) up to 13 ft. subsidence in some areas which obviously increases existing flooding problems.
Detention ponds are also used now for new projects (e.g., Katy Freeway at BW 8) or even in areas of existing flood risk without new construction (e.g., a couple on Brays Bayou, proposed ones for White Oak Bayou in the heights), and – I know it’s hard to believe – but sometimes even planning ahead (e.g., Sims Bayou ponds upstream of 288).
And concreting over natural riverbeds is not a Houstonian thing. It’s more of an older theory of flood control used in certain areas where they thought it made sense at the time. Look at the Los Angeles river. That whole thing is concrete and it looks more artificial than anything I’ve seen in Houston.
From Random Poster:
“…3) Raze half of this town and leave it for green space and drainage “improvements“….”
———————–
I’m with you, man. I’m glad you brought up this good idea, so well thought-out and not at all based on foaming at the mouth irrational anger.
We need to implement this idea – and QUICK! The City almost made a huge mistake which would’ve cost households five dollars every year! Evicting 50% of them and razing their houses is obviously preferable for all involved.