June, 2009:
Turner not running for Mayor
The Mayoral field for this November should now be set.
State Rep. Sylvester Turner announced today he would not attempt a run for mayor of Houston.
The 11-term Democrat representative's announcement comes a little more than three weeks after he publicly acknowledged he was weighing a third run for mayor. Turner said he was considering a campaign after being asked by community supporters to get in the race.
"Although I believe the race is eminently winnable, a late entry into the campaign would have required that I drop every other project in which I am involved, community endeavors such as the Houston Astros Urban Youth Baseball Academy in Acres Homes and continuing my work in the Texas Legislature, to which I am deeply committed and thoroughly enjoy," Turner said in a statement issued this morning.
Had he opted to run, Turner would have joined an already crowded field. Announced candidates include former city attorney Gene Locke, Councilman Peter Brown, City Controller Annise Parker, Harris County Department of Education Trustee Roy Morales and businessman T.J. Huntley. The filing deadline is in late September.
Earlier this month, Turner said he promised potential supporters he would consider a run after the legislative session concluded earlier this month.
I've got Turner's full statement beneath the fold. I'd heard a couple of weeks ago that he was making calls to potential campaign contributors, as nobody serious gets into a race like this without some assurance that the resources needed to run a campaign will be there. Maybe he wasn't getting the response he thought he'd need, or maybe he really just didn't think he could commit to the race. I was somewhat skeptical that he'd jump in, so I can't say that this surprises me. Greg has more, including some possible candidates in other races:
African Americans Rozy Shorter and Andrew Burks are considering contesting Sue Lovell for at large 2.
Green Party gay activist Alfred Molison has filed his treasurer designation to oppose District C City Council Member Anne Clutterbuck.
African American former assistant Texas Attorney General Lewis Cook has designated his treasurer to run for the District F seat MJ Khan is leaving and Richard Sedita has designated his treasurer for District G, the seat Pam Holm is leaving.
Shorter has been out there for awhile. Burks is a perennial candidate; his last race was for HCDE Trustee against Roy Morales in 2006. Molison ran twice in 2007, once in the May special election for At Large #3, where he finished tenth, and again in November where he was one of two candidates who ran against Clutterbuck, getting a shade under 6% of the vote. Cook has been in the race for awhile, but I don't know much about him. Sedita makes five in District G, joining Mills Worsham, Oliver Pennington, Dexter Handy, and George Foulard.
Special session starts tomorrow
The special session everyone knew was coming to address the disposition of several state agencies begins tomorrow. So far, at least, the agenda hasn't changed from the original call.
Gov. Rick Perry is being pressed to add issues ranging from children's health care to voter identification to the agenda of the special session that begins Wednesday, but his answer is still no.
Perry, a Republican, made clear when he called the session last week that he wants lawmakers to take just a few days to complete must-do business left undone in the regular session, then be gone.
He hasn't changed his mind, spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said Monday: "The governor has already announced what will be addressed during the special session and at this time doesn't have any intentions to expand the call."
"At this time" certainly leaves wiggle room for him. There have been plenty of other bills filed for the session in the event the Governor uses that wiggle room, including a CHIP expansion provision that already has majority support in the House. Unfortunately, what it doesn't have is Perry's support, so I wouldn't hold my breath. As for voter ID, the best assurance we've got right now is this sentiment:
Rep. Betty Brown, R-Athens, said she has asked Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus for a commitment to address voter ID in the special session.
Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, said he hasn't – and won't – ask Perry to add the issue: "I want to get in here and get it over with and get back home."
Amen to that. House Speaker Joe Straus has a vision for how that will happen.
[Monday], three House bills [were] pre-filed that correspond to Gov. Rick Perry's agenda: The Sunset scheduling bill for the transportation, insurance, racing and two smaller agencies; authorization of $2 billion in transportation bonds and creation of the Texas Transportation Revolving Fund, and extension of comprehensive development agreements to build roads.
On Wednesday, the Legislature will convene at 10 a.m. Those House bills will promptly be assigned to three House committees — Appropriations, State Affairs and Transportation— for the required public hearings.
On Thursday, the House is expected to have its first calendar for consideration. Committees are expected to have approved the bills the previous day, if everything goes on schedule.
On Friday, "if it is the will of the members to do so, we will conclude our business."
According to the Straus memo, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, will author the transportation bond bill; state Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, chairman of the Sunset Advisory Bill, will carry the Sunset bill, and Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, will carry the so-called CDA bill.
To expedite the three-day express schedule, a special briefing for House members and their staffs will be held at 1:30 Tuesday in the Capitol Auditorium to answer questions about the bills.
The question is what happens if one item on the call doesn't get swift approval?
arried a bill that would have extended by six years the legal authority for TxDOT and regional mobility authorities to sign what have usually been 50-year contracts with private companies to build and operate (and profit from) tollways on public land. Authority for such leases expires Sept. 1.
The general understanding was that the legislation's final passage was dependent on approval of a separate bill by state Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, that would put limits on such contracts. Both bills passed the House and Senate, either with their original bill numbers or as part of the main TxDOT bill that died late in the session.
The question is, will that linkage still be the case in the special session? Nichols said Monday that it had better be, or the toll road item could end up in the ditch.
"I feel very strongly about it, and so do many" other senators, Nichols said.
Carona said Monday that he could see eliminating at least some of what Nichols had in mind if a toll road lease extension were passed that applied to only a handful of projects for which officials have already decided who — TxDOT or local toll authorities — will be in charge of the projects. That list reportedly includes extending the Texas 130 tollway north from Georgetown to Hillsboro, building the new Interstate 69 from south of Refugio to the Rio Grande Valley and adding toll lanes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
However, even in those cases, Carona said, "you'd have to have at least put some protections in there."
So, what would Perry do if something close to [Nichols' bill] were attached to the extension legislation in the special session? Some officials said that such an amendment could be determined to be outside the scope of Perry's call. Nichols disagrees with that.
Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said Perry's staff is talking with Nichols' office to discuss his concerns.
Carona said, "One source in the governor's office indicated that any bill that contained the Nichols language would be vetoed. Another said that's not necessarily so."
Yes, well, we know how good Perry's staff is at communicating the Governor's intentions in these matters. I feel reassured, don't you?
Jeff Weems
We've been hearing plenty about the top of the ticket for Democrats in 2010, but there are still several slots to fill. One of them is the Railroad Commissioner seat held by Victor Carrillo. Via email to Carl Whitmarsh, here's a name for you:
Jeff Weems is running for the Democratic nomination for Texas Railroad Commissioner in 2010, hopefully earning a chance to square off with Republican incumbent Victor Carrillo.
Jeff is currently the precinct Chair for Precinct 274. He is an oil and gas litigation attorney, representing exploration companies, service companies and landowners. Before becoming an attorney, he worked in the industry for years, first as a laborer on drilling rigs, next as a mud man, then as a landman. He has been an attorney for 19 years. He works with Harrison, Bettis, Staff, McFarland & Weems, a mid-sized Houston litigation firm.
Jeff is running because he knows the energy industry inside and out. He knows that the Railroad Commission can do so much more than it does now. The incumbent Republican commissioners are far too ready to take contributions from companies with matters pending before the commission, even when they are not up for election. Even more importantly, the current commissioners have demonstrated a bias toward the gas utilities when rate cases are heard, which ends up costing the citizens of Texas dearly. In addition, Jeff will balance the desires of the operators seeking to drill and complete wells with the need to protect Texas' environment (such as in the Barnett Shale).
Won't surprise me if Dale Henry, who was a candidate in 2006 and again in 2008, runs again. Mark Thompson, who defeated Henry and Art Hall in the 2008 primary for RR Commish, is currently running for Governor. There may be someone else out there as well – who knows, maybe Hall wants to take another crack at it – but at least we have one.
The potential contenders for all statewide offices at this time, as I know of them:
Governor – Tom Schieffer is in, Kinky Friedman and Mark Thompson say they're in. Kirk Watson and/or Ronnie Earle may decide to join them. Former San Antonio Mayor Phil Hardberger has been mentioned as well, but while everyone I've spoken to loves the guy, nobody as yet thinks this is likely.
Lieutenant Governor – Not a whole lot of chatter about this one just yet, but I've recently heard that State Sen. Royce West, who has previously expressed some interest in Attorney General, may run for this slot instead. Watson remains a possibility here as well.
Attorney General – Barbara Radnofsky is in. West and Earle are possible. State Rep. Patrick Rose has been in the conversation, but any buzz he's had has diminished of late. 2006 nominee David Van Os is always a possibility, but the word I've heard lately is that he's not considering it.
Comptroller – Haven't heard a peep. Susan Combs may become the Kay Bailey Hutchison of the next decade, at least if no one serious ever challenges her.
Ag Commish – 2006 nominee Hank Gilbert is running. He may have company, but as yet I've not heard any other names.
Land Commish – I have recently heard the name of a potentially exciting candidate for this slot, but that person has not made a decision and the name was given to me in confidence, so that's all I can say for now.
So there you have it. Regarding the Comptroller slot, Combs probably is the one person no one serious wants to run against. There's a danger in that if there is a vacuum, it could get filled by a clown like Fred Head, whose buffoonish presence would be a drag on a ticket that had, say, Watson, West, and Earle/Radnofsky as the headliners. You can't stop anyone from running – see "Kelly, Gene" for all the evidence of that you'll need – but you can try to persuade someone with a bit more heft to challenge him in the primary if it comes down to it. A self-funder would be preferred, given the amount of funds that will need to be devoted to other races. Whether one can be found or not is the question.
The whole "two thirds" thing is more flexible than you might think
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth is mad as heck about some Senate rules shenanigans, according to the Statesman's Jason Embry.
Wentworth, R-San Antonio, thinks that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst abused his authority in the recently completed legislative session, and he wants senators to change their rules in 2011 to prevent it from happening again.
To back up for a second, I wrote a story for the Statesman last week about the fact that most of the bills that Gov. Rick Perry vetoed this year received few dissenting votes as they moved through the Legislature. As part of that story, I talked to Wentworth, who unsuccessfully pushed a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature to come back into a brief special session and override some of Perry's vetoes.
Wentworth said that the measure had support from 26 of the 31 senators but Dewhurst would not recognize him to bring it up for a vote. And this part was not in that story — Wentworth said senators should change their rules in the next session to prevent that from happening again.
"If I have anything to say about it, we're going to change the rules come January 2011," Wentworth said. "We're going to say, if you put a file in writing with the secretary of the Senate, 21 signatures that senators want to debate a bill, then the president of the Senate should recognize that senator the next day of the session."
He added, "We're not going to put up with this any longer. There are a number of senators that I've already spoken to that agree with me. It only takes 16 senators to adopt rules."
Wentworth said Dewhurst told him that Gov. Rick Perry talked to him 20 times about stopping the legislation. And he said former Sen. Ken Armbrister, who works for Perry, "cajoled and threatened" six senators into opposing the measure, giving Dewhurst the cover he needed to not bring up the bill. (Asked about all this, Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons said only that the bill did not have the votes necessary to be called up).
Wentworth said there is an unwritten understanding between senators and the lieutenant governor that if 21 senators are willing to debate a bill, Dewhurst will recognize the appropriate senator to bring it up.
"The lieutenant governor should not abuse that power that we give him," Wentworth said. "He should not have given his word to Perry that he would kill that bill."
Just so we're all clear, Wentworth was perfectly happy to scrap the existing two-thirds rule to bring voter ID to the floor. I'd have more sympathy for him if it weren't for that. Live by the end-around, die by the end-around, you know? In any event, Burka thinks this is a bad idea on principle, and he thinks he has a better one.
If Wentworth's plan goes through, it will change the nature of the lieutenant governor's office. The proposal grants 21 senators the ability to force the lieutenant governor to recognize one of their number to bring legislation to the floor. By denying the light gov the discretion of when and whether to recognize members, Wentworth would weaken the office and rob the legislative branch of a counterweight to the executive.
If one of the arguments against Wentworth's proposal is that it ties the hands of the lieutenant governor, another argument is that his idea is doomed to failure. All the lieutenant governor has to do is to take a look at the list, pick out one or two members to lobby, get them to remove their names, and –poof! — there won't be twenty-one signatures any more.
I think that there is an easy solution to the problem of the Legislature's inability to override the governor's vetoes: start sooner. Quit wasting time early in the session. Get legislation to the governor's desk early enough that he has to take action while the session is still going on. The Legislature could do what Congress does. After the November elections, each house should caucus in December. The speaker and the lieutenant governor will have a month to meet with members and get their committee preferences. At the caucus, the presiding officer-apparent announces the appointments for the upcoming session. And the Legislature can began holding committee hearings in January. The accelerated schedule will get bills to the governor's desk in a timely manner so that he has to take action before the session ends, giving the Legislature a chance to override his vetoes.
In theory, Burka's solution makes a lot of sense, and should be the norm in years where the Speaker is predetermined. As he admits, that wouldn't have helped this time around, and may not help in 2011 – the most likely scenario is a House that's nearly as evenly divided as it is now, with a 75-75 split a distinct possibility – or 2013, the first post-redistricting session, either. Other than that, it's a great idea.
Texas blog roundup for the week of June 29
It's Fourth of July week, and so it's time for an extra-patriotic rendition of the Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup. Click on for the highlights.
Neighborhood concerns about the transit corridors ordinance
I think most people who choose to live in Houston's urban core would agree that density is a good thing as a general rule. Density done in a half-assed way, which has been Houston's trademark, not so much.
Density hasn't been kind to Cottage Grove, a small neighborhood with narrow streets, few sidewalks, poor drainage and scarce parking for the owners of its many new homes and their guests.
Like many neighborhoods inside Loop 610, Cottage Grove in recent years has experienced a flurry of construction of large townhomes that loom over 80-year-old cottages next door. Two or three dwellings crowd sites where one house stood previously. Streets are cluttered with vehicles parked every which way. Water stands in the streets after heavy rains.
"It was shocking to see this jewel of a neighborhood in this condition," said former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, a senior fellow with the nonprofit Urban Land Institute who toured Cottage Grove two years ago. "It was about the ugliest thing I'd ever seen, to be honest with you."
The issues in Cottage Grove and other central Houston neighborhoods are on the minds of city officials, neighborhood leaders and others as the city considers the first major revisions to its development code in a decade. The proposed amendments were prompted in part by indications that pressure for dense new development is spreading to the area between Loop 610 and Beltway 8.
Marlene Gafrick, Houston's planning and development director, said her department's proposal to extend Houston's "urban area" from the Loop to the Beltway would give dozens of neighborhoods tools to protect their traditional character and quality of life, such as procedures to petition for minimum lot sizes and building lines.
Some neighborhood leaders on both sides of the Loop, however, worry the measures don't go far enough to prevent flooding, protect open space or ensure adequate parking. They see the proposals as an extension of the same approach that produced current conditions in neighborhoods such as Cottage Grove.
You can see plenty of other examples of this. The part of north Montrose where I used to live before moving to the Heights is another good example, filled with narrow streets that used to house small bungalows that now feature fewer bungalows surrounded by three-story crammed-in town homes. Streets that used to have a few cars parked on them here and there are now full on both sides – some streets, like the block of Van Buren where I had resided, now restrict parking to one side only – making passage difficult. Longtime residents have been negatively affected by all this.
It didn't have to be this way. A lot of these old neighborhoods had been in decline and really a shot in the arm from new construction. It just needed to be done in a way that recognized their needs and limits. Improving sidewalks and ensuring that the drainage system could take the increased capacity would have helped. Pairing all this new inner-core growth with expansions and upgrades to public transit, including a more aggressive approach to building out light rail, and making more mixed-use development possible where it made sense, would have made a huge difference. We can't undo what has been done, but we can try to stop repeating these mistakes, and we can try to address some of the now more urgent needs these neighborhoods have. We even know what needs to be done. The question is, when City Council takes up the new ordinance in August, will we do it, or will we continue down the same path as before?
Wilshire Village's going-away photos
I ask for photos of the impending demolition of Wilshire Village Apartments, I get photos. And I echo Robert Boyd:
I just hope the developer, who thus far has been shown to have no particular vision (or much human decency) will preserve the oaks and magnolia trees that dot this property.
The first domino
Everybody's been waiting to see what Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will do next year, in the anticipation that if he announces a run for something else, Attorney General Greg Abbott will announce that he's running for Lite Gov, and the dominoes will start falling as others scramble to move up the ladder. Turns out that it may not matter what Dewhurst decides to do – Abbott may knock over that first domino regardless.
Abbott's new political director was coy when asked about a tip that Abbott definitely is running for lieutenant governor.
"The dominos are all falling. We still have the special session to get through. It's a game of speculation right now," says Luke Marchant, who returned to Texas earlier this month to run Abbott's political shop.
As we know, right now Barbara Radnofsky is running for AG as a Democrat, and Republican Ted Cruz is all set to go as well. All I can say is that they'll both have company in the event this happens.
Will the Alabama Bookstop be spared the wrecking ball?
A commenter at Swamplot, who claims to have inside information, has the following to say about the River Oaks Shopping Center and the Alabama Bookstop.
1. Barnes and Noble owns Bookstop. They are closing it to move to the new location at ROSC.
2. Weingarten has no intent of demolishing the Alabama Theater. They have been marketing the space for re-use. They intend to restore the facade when a new tenant signs on.
Everyone knew that the Bookstop's days were numbered. With the massive Borders Books just a few blocks away at Alabama and Kirby, and the new B&N opening soon, there couldn't possibly be enough capacity to keep the Bookstop in business as well. The question that vexed everyone who cared about preservation was what would happen to the historic Alabama Theater building that currently houses the Bookstop. If this information is accurate, it's the first positive thing I've heard about its disposition since Weingarten first announced the demolition of the original River Oaks Shopping Center.
The commenter had more to say about other matters, including this somewhat puzzling bit.
4. Weingarten's long term interest in ROSC is to achieve the highest and best use for this property. They want to bring a higher density to the center that they feel is appropriate for its location.
5. Before the crash last fall they were working on a plan to improve the walk-a-bility of the ROSC through landscaping and art. I believe the project is on hold right now. Its interesting how everyone is in favor of density (less driving and more walking) except when it affects something in your backyard.
I still don't understand how adding a massive bookstore and a five-story parking garage contributes to "less driving and more walking". There's a discussion in the comments to that Swamplot post about how of course the ROSC is "walkable" because hey, you can park your car in the lot and then walk to any of the nearby stores. By that definition, the shopping center that includes the Costco at I-10 and Bunker Hill is walkable, too. The new ROSC may or may not be more pedestrian-friendly than the old one was, at least for those who drove and parked there. There are certainly things that can be done to make it so, some of which were explored in that comment thread – planting trees, widening sidewalks, etc. I seriously doubt Weingarten cares to spend any of its own money on stuff like that, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong about that. When there's mixed-use development in this area, as well as transit options to get residents in and out of there without needing to drive, then we can talk about density and walkability in a meaningful fashion.
Another appeals court case to be proud of
By "proud", I mean "deeply embarrassed". Here's Rick Casey discussing a decision by the 1st Court of Appeals in which the infamous case of death row inmate Calvin Burdine and his sleeping lawyer, Joe Cannon is referenced, and not in a good way.
"Like the 'sleeping lawyer' case, this case will stand as a significant embarrassment in the history of Texas jurisprudence," wrote Justice Terry Jennings in a stinging dissent.
This isn't a death penalty case, but a lawsuit in which child protection authorities sought to terminate a father's parental rights. We Texans consider families so important that we give indigent parents a tax-paid attorney to represent them if the state tries to take away their children.
In this case, John Spjut (pronounced "Spyoot") was appointed to represent Frederick DeWaynne Walker.
Spjut didn't sleep through the trial. He simply didn't attend it. Nor did he do much preparation. Walker testified he called Spjut's office at least five times but never reached him.
Spjut's bills to the county do not indicate any contact with his client. He did bill the county for filing an answer to the state's termination lawsuit, writing two letters to Walker, and spending one hour preparing for trial. Total fee: $750.
But on the actual day of the trial, Spjut didn't show. Instead, he sent his brother Dan to try the case.
It must have been a challenge. Without a lawyer guiding him, Walker had a hard time finding the right courtroom and didn't show up until after lawyers for the state had put on their case against him.
By Jennings' estimate, based on the trial transcript, Dan Spjut's direct examination of Walker lasted less than four minutes.
The entire trial, Jennings estimated, took less than 45 minutes.
Yet the two other justices on the panel that heard Walker's appeal ruled that his right to have a lawyer had not been violated. Justice George C. Hanks Jr., joined by Justice Jane Bland, wrote that Walker had to prove that he would likely have won if his attorney had done a better job.
Hanks wrote that Walker didn't prove that the way Spjut conducted his defense wasn't "the exercise of reasonable professional judgment."
Jennings argues in dissent that Walker received "assistance" of counsel "far below that afforded to the criminal defendant in the infamous 'sleeping lawyer case.' "
"Walker's appointed trial counsel never discussed the case with Walker and then abandoned Walker on the trial date," he wrote.
I guess if there's somebody who can be called a "lawyer" that's with you in the courtroom, that's good enough. I wonder if any of the justices who render opinions like this have the same expectation of what a basic level of assistance would be from, say, a doctor or a broker.
Sadly, neither of the justices who thought this kind of lawyering was A-OK are up for re-election next year – we'll have to wait till 2012 to render our own opinions. On a side note, in searching around for info about Calvin Burdine and his snoozing attorney, I came across this old blog post that detailed some fun and games then-District Court Judge, now State Sen. Joan Huffman played in Burdine's retrial. I wish I'd have remembered it before her election last year, but oh well.
Vetoing smart growth
Houston Tomorrow takes a look at one of the vetoed bills that I hadn't examined before, SB2169, "relating to the establishment of a smart growth policy work group and the development of a smart growth policy for this state."
The bill would have instructed the heads of many state agencies to appoint representatives to serve on a task force charged with bringing back suggestions for the Texas legislature for ways to prepare for the projected population growth in the state. As noted by the Legislative Budget Board, "no significant fiscal implication to the state [was] anticipated" because of the bill, and its primary outcome would be that "each odd-numbered year the group [would have been] required to submit a progress report to the legislature." The Legislative Budget Board report went on to state that were this bill to have passed "Local governments may benefit from policies developed by the smart growth policy work group, but any benefits will depend on what future policies recommend and the operating environment of each local government." According to the bill analysis posted at Texas Legislature Online, the bill would not "expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution."
They note that the bill had bipartisan support – it passed 99-48 in the House (98-49 if you accept Rep. Todd Hunter's "meant to vote no"), and unanimously in the Senate. More to the point, "Out of the 76 representatives from the 8 largest urban counties in Texas, only 18 (22%) voted against the bill." All 18 came from Harris and the Metroplex, mostly from suburban areas. Alas, the words "smart growth" are considered dirty by the likes of Governor Perry, as you can see in his veto statement, where he pays homage to the idea of "local control" when it suits him to do so.
On a side note, the Statesman reports that the Governor killed numerous bills for which there was little to no opposition:
A dozen of the 37 pieces of legislation that Gov. Rick Perry vetoed late last week moved through the Legislature without a single opposing vote.
The various measures would have, among other things, changed the makeup of the Teacher Retirement System board, allowed authorities to more quickly erase criminal records when someone is arrested but not charged with a crime, and given college students more time to graduate before they faced tuition increases for staying in school too long.
Most of the other bills Perry vetoed drew just a handful of dissenting votes — fewer than five in the 31-member Senate or 10 in the 150-member House.
"There's no check on the governor's power to veto bills that have been through an entire process," said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a Republican from San Antonio who represents part of southern Travis County. Wentworth sponsored legislation that would have given lawmakers an opportunity to convene for three days after a regular session to override gubernatorial vetoes. It did not pass.
The Perry vetoes highlight the fact that most bills that pass the Legislature do so with overwhelming support, especially when they are locally focused bills such as several of those on Perry's veto list. Lawmakers are particularly inclined to support legislation in the final days of the 140-day session, when they're hit with a stampede of bills trying to make it to the governor's desk before the clock runs out.
The scrutiny is more intense earlier in the session. Bills have to pass through numerous committees, often leading to hours of public testimony and several drafts before they even reach the floor of the House or Senate. Then the process begins again in the other chamber, and the two sides must ultimately reconcile the different versions of the legislation they approve.
It's certainly true that some bad bills, as well as some bills that started out as good but then picked up some bad amendments (*cough* *cough* HB770 *cough* *cough*) can pass on near-unanimous lines. HB3588 from 2003, which authorized the Trans Texas Corridor, is a good example of that. Local and consent bills, which by definition aren't controversial, also generally breeze through. Still, the Lege is designed to make it hard for bills to pass, and I haven't heard anyone claim that the bills that got the axe this time around were ones that needed to be killed because of poor legislative oversight. These were Perry's decisions for his own reasons, like them or not.
So yesterday was the annual Pride parade in Houston. It was greeted by this sweet article in the lifestyle section.
Today's Pride Festival will celebrate the diversity of the Houston area's thriving gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
That diversity includes the determinedly domestic life that Ben Austin and Bill Thomasson have carved out with their two children in a southwestern suburb.
The walls of their roomy Sugar Land home are filled with family pictures — Thomasson is one of 11 siblings — as well as multiplication tables, maps and pennants of potential colleges. Not that Ava, 7, and Elijah, 6, are ready to think about college just yet. Elijah's interests encompass the world of sports, while Ava is expert on all things canine.
The couple adopted the children from state authorities while living in Oakland, Calif., after taking required parent-training classes and fostering each of the children for more than a year. Ava was almost 4 when she entered the system, and Elijah was just a month old.
Austin, an adopted only child who went to Bellaire High School, met Thomasson in a gym in Oakland, Calif., in 2002. He says the two fell into domestication almost immediately and in April 2004 made it official with a domestic partnership. Both men wear wedding bands.
Both men played college baseball, which gets Elijah's approval.
"He just thinks it's better to have two dads because they both play baseball," Austin says.
Gotta admit, that would be a bonus. The story made a nice and necessary counterweight to this remarkably self-loathing op-ed from Friday.
The gay parenting movement is still more evidence of the fundamental selfishness of post-Stonewall gay America. Whereas many gay couples can and do bring parentless children into their homes in an act of loving and giving, thousands of other gay couples who could have adopted use various technologies and arrangements to make babies that from the start have no mother or have no father. This cruel act — to one's own child — is almost never criticized in the gay community, which is so focused on everyone's freedom and self-esteem, it doesn't seem to want to bother to notice that children are being hurt by being denied up front the right to have both a mother and a father.
The gay and lesbian community today is infected with what I like to call Equality Mania. That's the belief that there is literally nothing more important than total equality between gays and straights, no matter what the costs. They are willing to sacrifice other good, important values in the name of gay equality — such as the religious freedom of same-sex marriage opponents, the welfare of children and (in the case of gays in the military) even national security.
I don't even know where to begin. I mean, "Equality Mania"? Who knew a desire to be treated like everyone else was a disorder of some kind? I'm just dumbfounded. I think it's safe to say this is an extreme minority position, one that's in decline, but one that likely will never go away completely.
Anyway. To get the bad taste of that piece out of your mouth, here's five great moments in Houston's gay history, and here's the news that the Caucus blog is back. Hope everyone had a happy weekend.
Weekend link dump for June 28
Six months (almost) down, six to go…
Curving a bullet.
The fringe, quantified.
The pundit-industrial complex.
I before E, except after the British government gets rid of it.
However beautiful the strategy, sometimes you have to check the results.
So, who's next on the GOP's list of voters to alienate now that they've done such thorough work with Latinos?
Good for you, Senator Dodd.
The Michelle Bachmann comic!
That which doesn't kill science makes it evolve into something stronger. Via Falkenberg.
The math geek in me says it's now (-Jon) + Kate + 8. Yeah, I know.
Possibly the best explanation you're going to get for what South Caolina Governor Mark Sanford was doing last weekend. OK, we know it's not true. But hey, some of the professional journalists who'd covered the story would have bought it.
And now, of course, "Hiking the Appalachian Trail" is now a part of the vernacular. Here are some other suggestions.
The first baseman who put the "cheese" in "machismo".
Best wishes for a speedy recovery to Wayne Slater.
When wallabies get stoned.
Happy birthday, Derek Jeter.
Watch those roaming charges.
Our local mental health crisis
Today's must-read is this op-ed by Dr. Stephen Schnee, the executive director of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County, about mental illness and the Harris County jails.
The Harris County Jail is now the largest mental health facility in Texas. Approximately 2,400 inmates a day are now diagnosed with a psychiatric illness that medically justifies the provision of psychiatric medications. There are almost as many psychiatrically ill inmates in the jail on psychiatric medications as there are patients in all of the Department of State Health Services hospital beds across the entire state.
Let that reality sink in.
How is this occurring? Several critical factors contribute to this disturbing trend. First, many individuals with a serious mental illness need early access to appropriate professional diagnosis and treatment and, often, supports to achieve and maintain stability in their psychiatric condition. These conditions aren't, as a general rule, cured by medication. Stabilized, yes — cured, no. These individuals need education about the condition, available treatment options, impact on personal capabilities, stability and maintenance over time, etc. — all of which are made more difficult by the nature of these disorders affecting the information-processing organ of the body — the brain. These are neuro-chemical — disorders of the brain. And, if one throws into the mix that many untreated or undertreated folks with mental illness self-medicate with street substances, alcohol or both to ease the internal pain, one has a recipe for people recycling in and out of the criminal justice system because their behaviors run afoul of the law.
The discrepancy between the funded treatment capacity (8,500 per month) for only the three eligible diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression (let alone all the other serious psychiatric conditions for which people end up in jail) is huge. A conservative estimate of the incidence/prevalence of these three diagnoses in Harris County is 170,000.
There is a growing awareness among our key county officials that the county simply can't afford to continue housing this growing population in the jail. More cost-effective options for certain misdemeanor offenses by people with mental illness are under active consideration. This will require literally building out an array of services and supports that don't currently exist in the form or quantity necessary to effectively impact this subpopulation.
Yes, he's talking about an expansion, probably a big one, in government services. I realize words like those will get knees jerking in certain quarters, but let's face it: We're already expending vast public resources on this problem, and it's getting worse. We need to do a better job of it, and that's going to require a different approach, for just as using the emergency room is the least efficient way to deliver health care to those who can't otherwise afford it, using the jails to deal with the mentally ill has got to be the least efficient way of handling that problem. Perhaps if we were already doing something different, we wouldn't have such severe and longstanding problems with the jails, and we wouldn't feel the need to spend millions of dollars to build a new jail to house all the inmates we can't current squeeze in. Point is, we're paying for all this now. We may as well get a better return on our expenditures.
Hot enough for ya?
Yeah, it's really hot out there.
Houston's relentless heat wave prompted the National Weather Service today to declare a "Heat Emergency," a designation that air temperature and humidity is a potential health threat for all people and is particularly dangerous for high-risk groups.
The emergency designation is expected to last through Friday, said Houston health department spokeswoman Kathy Barton.
Barton said the health department has accordingly invoked its heat emergency plan, which involves working with Metro to bring people to designated cooling centers, such as libraries, and generally urging people to take extra precautions to stay inside.
It is not uncommon for the weather service to declare a heat emergency in Houston, though it didn't happen last summer. Such an emergency is declared when the heat index, a computation of air temperature and humidity, reaches 108 degrees on two more consecutive days.
The index reached 108 Wednesday and is expected to reach that level today and Friday. Houston's actual temperature hit 104 degrees Wednesday, the hottest it's ever gotten in June.
It's pretty much a given that any time there's an extra cold winter day somewhere, the global warming deniers point to it as evidence that it's all a hoax. Here's a recent example of that, from someone who unfortunately was in a strong position to emasculate the just-passed climate change legislation. This kind of thinking is stupid on many levels, not the least of which is that if a bit of unseasonably cold weather means global warming is a myth, then what does a record heat wave imply? Not that logic is a strong suit for the head-in-the-sand crowd, but you'd think this sort of thing might have occurred to them. Ah, well. At least so far there's no evidence that this means a worse hurricane season is in store. I'll take my silver linings where I can find them.
Compost or else
Go, San Francisco!
Trash collectors in San Francisco will soon be doing more than just gathering garbage: They'll be keeping an eye out for people who toss food scraps out with their rubbish.
San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost — everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.
The law makes San Francisco the leader yet again in environmentally friendly measures, following up on other green initiatives such as banning plastic bags at supermarkets.
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish. The city eventually wants to eliminate waste at landfills by 2020.
Awesome. Houston offers a separate compost pickup, but it's voluntary and frankly I doubt more than one person out of ten is familiar with it. When the city decides to get serious about increasing recycling rates and cutting down on its landfill use, this is the kind of approach I want it to take. Speaking as someone who has a compost pile in his backyard, the marginal effort it takes to separate this kind of trash from the rest is miniscule. There's no reason we couldn't do this, and no reason I can think of that we shouldn't. Via The American Scene.
Saturday video break: It gives us those nice bright colors
News item: Kodak is retiring its iconic Kodachrome film after 74 years. I think you know what's coming:
Makes you think that all the world's a sunny day, doesn't it?
We may miss the SUPERTRAIN
As we have reported here often, the federal government is about to dump a lot of money on states to develop a handful of high-speed passenger rail corridors, and the good news for us is that Texas is home to two of the 11 routes highlighted for special focus. (Click here for the feds' plan: hsrstrategicplan.pdf.)
The bad news? As I wrote in a short piece for the newspaper this morning, Texas is so poorly positioned to build its rail lines, it's all but certain to be shut out of the big money. (Another take on the same theme, from San Antonio, is here.)
The reason for this, in short, is that other states are way ahead of us in laying the groundwork for building rail infrastructure and dealing with the funding issues for same. Christof gave a to-do list awhile ago. And we did at least get a bill passed and signed to authorize a study of high speed rail. But that's just a baby step, and several other states are far ahead of us. We've got a lot of catching up to do, or we'll lose out on a lot of federal dollars in the next few years. That would be a huge missed opportunity, and a real shame.
Get ready to say good-bye to Wilshire Village
Swamplot brings the sad but totally expected news.
As noted in today's Daily Demolition Report below, 20 structures of the Wilshire Village garden apartments at the corner of Alabama and Dunlavy received demolition permits yesterday.
Aren't there only 17 buildings in the complex? Maybe everyone's just trying to be extra sure to get them all.
Somehow, that's just fitting. My only request is that someone take pictures of the demolition. Then we'll see how long it takes before something is built in its place – as we know from various other examples, it could be awhile.
Potential challenger for Burnam
Via Campos, I see that State Rep. Lon Burnam of Fort Worth may get a primary challenger next year.
City Councilman Sal Espino has heard a lot of frustration from constituents about what state lawmakers did not accomplish in the recently completed legislative session.
Now, he's trying to see what he can do about it and is considering whether to challenge state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, for the District 90 state House seat in next year's Democratic Party primary.
"There's a lot of frustration about what is happening in Austin," said Espino, who has served on the City Council since 2005. "There are a lot of issues [about] cities and local governments that are not being addressed.
"Fort Worth is the largest city in Texas without a Hispanic representing a House seat," he said. "I don't think [Burnam] has been able to get much meaningful legislation passed, although I admire his battle against the prior speaker."
Burnam, who was elected to District 90 in 1996 on his third try, said he believes that Espino should stay where he is, especially because he was re-elected this year to another two-year term on the Fort Worth City Council.
"Sal has no experience in this arena," Burnam said. "There is a role for people like Sal, but more importantly, there is a role for people like me . . . to stand up against [former House Speaker Tom] Craddick, to stand up over and over again. It takes people with experience and leadership to make a difference."
I like Rep. Burnam, and as I said before I think he needs to be judged on a different set of criteria than some other Reps, as he plays a different role. I can understand the frustration his constituents may have about a lack of action in the Lege, but let's face it: This was the first session since 2001 that was reasonably conducive to Democratic interests, though that was only to the point where the Republican insistence on voter ID derailed everything in its path. In short, there's only so much that could have been done. Whether Rep. Burnam's constituents agree with that, or see his role as I do, that's the question.
More questionable arson convictions
The Observer has published the second of its stories on questionable arson convictions (the first, from April, is here). It's a compelling series, and really gives a good picture of why these two cases should not have resulted in charges, much less prison sentences. Reading it, and reading some of the blogging that Grits has done on the topic, has been an eye-opener, the kind of thing that makes me hope it gets more of a pop-culture treatment – you could make for an awesome "CSI" or "Law and Order" episode out of this, and I can think of a half-dozen or so crime-fiction writers who could do even more. Maybe if that happens, it might penetrate the public consciousness in the way that DNA exonerations have started to do.
One of the things that the article notes is that the Texas Forensic Science Commission is on the verge of releasing its report on Cameron Willingham, who may go down in Texas history as the first officially-declared innocent person to have been executed. Willingham, whose case is recounted in great detail here, was convicted and ultimately put to death in 2004 for the 1991 fire that killed his three daughters. Advances in scientific knowledge of how fires get started and spread showed just how bogus the state's case was against him. Ironically, that report will be released shortly after the 200th execution of Governor Perry's career. Overzealous implementation may help build public support for doing away with the death penalty in this state, but I think it'll take a case of an actually innocent executed inmate to truly swing the tide. Grits has more.
Governor's race reaction roundup
Rachel rounds up a bunch of bloggers' reactions to the various happenings among Democratic candidates, potential candidates, and former candidates for Governor. Couple of things to note: One, as KT points out, Ronnie Earle is still in the mix. And two, I think Burka's take on Kirk Watson is very sharp. I realize there's a certain amount of pessimism in the air right now concerning the state of the Governor's race. But what strikes me is how many people experience and capability are currently considering running for something statewide. That's a real change from 2006, and reflects a shift in the perception of winnability by Democrats. I see plenty of reasons to be optimistic about that.
On a side note, Stace announces his support for Bill White for Senate. I realize that John Sharp has repeatedly denied any interest in the Governor's race despite national speculation that he'd shift. I'm thinking the window for him to make that shift in any event is narrowing. Just a thought.
Friday random ten: Little bits
We've got big songs, and we've got little songs:
1. Little Beggarman – Great Big Sea
2. Little Brown Jug – Glenn Miller
3. Little By Little – Southside Johnny and The Jukes
4. Little Fallen Angel – Austin Lounge Lizards
5. Little Geneva – Muddy Waters
6. A Little Is Enough – Pete Townshend
7. Little Liza Jane – Hot Club of Cowtown
8. Little Miss Can't Be Wrong – Spin Doctors
9. Little Willy – Sweet
10. Little Wing – Stevie Ray Vaughan
What little things have got you going today?
Voting right on climate change, part 3
The late-stage whip count on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 has produced a particular political irony. A measure crafted by two Democrats in the House of Representatives — Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — over the course many years could hinge on the willingness of members of their own party to compromise.
At the heart of the issue is a belief among some progressives that the bill's standard for carbon emission reductions have been set too low, and that the measure itself is too easy on both the coal industry and farmers. Already, according to Hill aides, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has said that he will not support the bill regardless of whether his own amendments are approved. High-ranking officials involved with whipping votes tell the Huffington Post that there are at least three or four other liberals who are withholding their support. Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Lloyd Doggett (D-T.X.) were two names put forward by multiple sources, the latter issuing a floor statement on Friday saying that without significant improvements he couldn't support the bill. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) whose vote remains up in the air, is said to be leaning towards backing the measure, according a Democratic source.
For a bill that could be decided by one or two votes, holdouts could make all the difference.
"The irony here is that this bill, which people like Waxman and others have been working on for years, could be derailed, not by the right wing," said one high-ranking Democrat, "but by members of their own party. This could be the classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face."
I'm going to say the same thing to Congressman Doggett that I said to Congressmen Gene Green and Charlie Gonzalez: The right thing to do is to vote for this bill. We can always make things better going forward, but if we don't take this first step now, after all this time, who knows how long it will take just to get this far again? Please do the right thing and vote for this bill, Congressman Doggett.
UPDATE: According to Politico, Rep. Doggett is now a Yes vote. Good for him.
UPDATE: Here's Rep. Doggett's statement.
Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) spoke on the House floor today about the pending climate legislation.
"I struggled deeply about whether to support this flawed bill, but I finally determined that voting for it was my best hope for making it better," Rep. Doggett said.
"Earlier today I voiced my strong objections to this bill. I voted against the rule to permit this debate because of its rejection of some amendments that I thought would have improved this legislation.
"For three reasons, I'm voting for final passage. First, I've been listening to the debate; not so much to those who support a bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the flat earth society and the climate deniers, and some of the most inane arguments I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge.
"Second, I believe there is still some hope to make improvements once it gets out of the House – better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed in this legislation.
"Third, I am convinced that unless we act today, the Senate will not act, and unless we act in this Congress, we will not get the international agreements we need to address this serious challenge. I'm voting yes in the hope that we will have a better bill and we will have the international accord that we so desperately need to deal with this critical matter."
To view a video of his floor statement, please click here.
We'll see what happens in the Senate.
More on the special session
Governor Perry speaks about the upcoming special session.
All were left unaddressed when the Legislature adjourned June 1. Perry told reporters he expects lawmakers to finish their work in "72 to 96 hours. I think that's three to four days, right? My Aggie math — y'all kind of check me on that."
Perry said he won't place the contentious issue of voter identification before lawmakers, even though the call for stricter voter identification is a priority for GOP leaders and lawmakers.
A fight over the issue stalled action in the regular session and undoubtedly would tie up the special session, which can last up to 30 days. The governor sets the agenda for special sessions and determines when they start.
"Look, we clearly believe that the issues that we're going to address are the ones that have to be taken care of," Perry told reporters after a separate speech. "We're talking about people's lives and livelihoods here when you talk about the Department of Insurance, when you're talking about TxDOT (the Texas Department of Transportation) … I want those employees to understand that we're going to get this bill passed and we're not going to take a chance on … any legislative mischief from some other piece of legislation."
Agencies that need legislation to continue also include the Texas Racing Commission, Office of Public Insurance Counsel and Texas State Affordable Housing Corp.
When I first read this, I felt a twinge of paranoia, because there was nothing in here to indicate that voter ID would not be taken up after these issues have been dealt with. I know I've opined that if Perry were going to do this, he'd be telegraphing his position, but that doesn't mean I'm feeling at ease. However, someone must have asked about this, because Perry did address it:
Perry said even if the issues he specifically listed are wrapped up, he won't expand the scope of the special session to include voter ID.
Well okay then. I doubt I'll completely shake that nagging feeling, at least until sine die, but that does help. Now how likely is it that this thing really will last only 3 or 4 days?
"To get this done in three days is very ambitious and requires the cooperation of a lot of people," says rules expert Hugh Brady. "You're really going to have to bust a hump if you're going to get this done by Friday afternoon."
More contested legislation like the Voter ID Bill and CHIP expansion have been kept off the agenda, and Perry says he doesn't anticipate adding anything new while the session's underway. But even with such a narrow set of issues on the call, lawmakers have a lot of leeway about what amendments they can add to bills.
True, the House Parliamentarian could always adopt a very strict interpretation of what amendments are germane to certain bills, but that would be going against several judicial and legislative precedents, Brady says. "If the House or the Senate really wants to, they could take a narrow bill and try to expand it to add consumer protection or whatever they'd like to add onto it." So lawmakers could still add amendments that substantially reform TxDoT and the insurance department, and it may take more than a few days to do so: just passing a bill in a three-day period would require suspending certain rules, he added.
But will they really want to? In that sense, at least, Perry timed his session well. As Brady points out, "it's the middle of the summer and nobody really wants to be here."
Sounds about right to me. We'll see how it plays out. Rep. Pena has more.
Council Member Gonzalez
Now that he has been officially sworn in to represent District H, new City Council Member Ed Gonzalez has hit the ground running.
He was called upon by City Councilwoman Sue Lovell to speak first about the death of Officer Henry Canales, who he knew as an 18-year veteran of HPD. Then, he got council to postpone for three weeks consideration for a contentious item in District H that would involve selling the land occupied by the Heights Recycling Center and moving the center to the First Ward. Gonzalez also went on to complain that a company being awarded additional city work had failed to meet its goal for contracting with minority-owned businesses.
Being ready on Day One was one of the things CM Gonzalez ran on, and I'm not at all surprised to see him live up to it. This is the first I've heard of the recycling facility – I assume they mean the one at Harvard and Center Streets. I guess the land it's on is worth some money, but I'd hate to see it move, as it's very convenient for dumping our accumulated glass. On the other hand, if single stream recycling comes to our neighborhood soon, that would mitigate the loss. In any event, thanks for looking out for that, CM Gonzalez. Stace has more.
Inflatable gorillas win one in court
How often do you get to write a headline like that?
U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore ruled that a 1993 city ordinance restricting the use of attention-getting devices, such as the giant balloons atop businesses, violated the due process and equal protection rights of Houston Balloons & Promotions. The judge awarded the company, owned by Jim Purtee and his wife, $927,841 plus an additional $187,000 in expenses and attorneys fees.
After a two-day trial earlier this month, Gilmore ruled the Houston sign ordinance section about attention-getting devices such as banners, pennants, streamers, strobes, spotlights, whirligigs and inflatable objects violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
She ruled that there was no rational relationship between the regulation that banned balloons with nongeneric messages, like logos, and the city's stated goals of traffic safety and visual aesthetics, especially because balloons with generic messages like "Sale" were allowed.
The judge found that the city violated the due process clause because the regulations were vague and the city enforced them arbitrarily and inconsistently.
Houston City Attorney Arturo Michel said the city will take a close look at the judge's decision to see if it should appeal the case.
Michel said he does not think this ruling has implications for the new ordinance that bans the balloons.
My advice would be to drop this case and pay the man, and to give a lot of thought as to the implications for the new ordinance, which Purtee says will be challenged in court. I've said before that on balance I think the new ordinance is a good thing, but I'm sufficiently ambivalent about it to feel that this development changes things. The risk of losing in court is now a lot higher, and unlike with billboards, I don't think this is a big enough issue to take that risk. It won't bother me if the city decides to cut its losses and not enforce the new ordinance.
As for Mr. Purtee, what else can one say but this?
Go ahead and crack open that cold one, dude. You've earned it.
RIP, Nerd Bird
The economic slowdown claims another victim.
When the Statesman's business desk got a tip from a reader that American Airlines was grounding the Nerd Bird, I was more than a little dubious.
The twice-a-day nonstop flight between Austin and San Jose, Calif., is more than just a convenient way for engineers, executives, salespeople and marketers to get to Silicon Valley. It's something of an Austin high-tech institution, and its demise seemed unfathomable.
Since the first Nerd Bird took off in October 1992, the 3½-hour trip had become a place for techies to swap résumés and rumors, make new contacts, rehearse sales pitches and, on occasion, surreptitiously read what's on a competitor's laptop screen.
"The beauty of the Nerd Bird is, you get on, and you never know who you're going to see, who you'll meet, what you'll learn," says Steve Vandegrift, a longtime Austin software entrepreneur and co-founder of Internet startup PipelineSuccess.com who has taken the flight numerous times over the years. "It's like a full Rolodex of connections every flight."
But now the ride is coming to an end. American confirmed it is discontinuing the flight, citing the recession and a slowdown in business travel. The Nerd Bird will stop flying Aug. 25.
Spokesman Tim Smith said the route might return one day, "but we're not in a position to promise it."
Man, I don't even live in Austin and that bums me out. I've got a lot of friends who have taken that flight a bunch of times. For their sake, at least, I hope this does come back some day.
RIP, Farrah Fawcett
Not unexpected, but still sad.
Fawcett was voted "most beautiful" her sophomore, junior and senior years at Ray High School [in Corpus Christi]. Her freshman year at the University of Texas, where she was majoring in microbiology and minoring in art, Fawcett was voted one of the university's 10 most beautiful coeds.
Back then, to local attorney and former state Rep. Bill Harrison and his group of friends, Farrah was just another girl hanging out with Harrison's younger sister Kathy.
"We called her 'Drippy (Fawcett),'" Harrison recalled. "She was just another little punk coming over to my sister's house."
When Fawcett was a sophomore and Harrison and his friends were seniors the boys took real notice.
Harrison introduced Fawcett to his best friend Gary Roberts, the guy she dated all the way through high school and into college.
Fawcett's father thought that Roberts and his daughter were getting too serious so it was up to Bill Harrison to pick Fawcett up for dates, he said.
"He liked me because I was the son of a minister," Bill Harrison recalled. "Gary would be sitting next to my date and I'd go pick up Farrah. And we'd go around the corner and Farrah would jump in the back with Gary and my date would get in the front."
Roberts, now a Kerrville banker watched Fawcett evolve from a Catholic school girl into one of the world's most renowned beauties.
She was more than that, of course. Her performance in The Burning Bed and Extremities proved she had acting chops. I'm not sure what happened to her career-wise after that, but whatever it was, she deserved better. Texas Monthly has more from their archives. Rest in peace, Farrah Fawcett.
Special session for July 1
We knew it was coming, and here it is.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, by the authority vested in me by Article IV, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution, do hereby call an extraordinary session of the 81st Legislature, to be convened in the City of Austin, commencing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, the 1st day of July 2009, for the following purposes:
To consider legislation that provides for extending the existence of several state agencies that were subject to sunset review by the 81st Legislature and will be abolished without legislative action under the state's Sunset Act, that changes the review schedule for certain state agencies to balance the workload of the Sunset Advisory Commission.
To consider legislation relating to the issuance by the Texas Transportation Commission, pursuant to Article III, Section 49-p, of the Texas Constitution, of general obligation bonds for highway improvement projects, and to the creation, administration, financing and use of a Texas Transportation Revolving Fund to provide financial assistance for transportation projects.
To consider legislation relating to the date on which the authority of the Texas Department of Transportation and a regional mobility authority to enter into a comprehensive development agreement expires.
The Secretary of State will take notice of this action and will notify the members of the legislature of my action.
I skipped all the "whereas"es – you can click the link if you care. As promised, a very short agenda, which theoretically and and quite likely will be completed before the July 4 holiday. Which would be fine by me, and I daresay most if not all of the legislators themselves. I know there was a lot of support for having CHIP legislation on the call, but given Perry's continuing opposition to it, I never thought that had a chance. The question at this point is whether or not Perry will add to the call once these items are done, or if they'll adjourn sine die once again. We'll know soon enough.
The latest Lyceum poll
The Texas Lyceum just released a poll on various campaigns and politicians, and well, I'm not sure that it says much of anything. I've got the PDF here, and the problems begin right away:
We interviewed Texas adults during the June 5-12 period, talking to 860 adults, 51% female, and 49% male. Three out of four said they are registered voters.
One third are "extremely interested" in politics and public affairs and another 46% are "somewhat interested." Almost half — 49% — said they vote in "every" or "almost every" election. Another 24 percent said they haven't voted in any election "over the last two or three years."
OK, so this is a survey of adults, not likely voters (that's a subsample of about 430) or even registered voters (approximately 650). Nothing wrong with that, but as it will include opinions from a lot of people who may not bother to cast a ballot next year, I'd be careful about what conclusions I drew from this if I were on a campaign.
About the same number of those polled said they are "certain" or "likely" to vote in each party's primary (Republicans, 31%; Democrats, 30%), and another 17 percent said they intend to vote in a primary but haven't yet decided which one.
So 49% of the sample actually exhibits habitual voting behavior, yet 78% claim they'll be voting in one primary or the other in March. The most generous percentage of "likely" voters one can claim for this survey is 76%, if one simply assumes anyone outside that group that hasn't voted at all in the past two or three years is likely to vote next year. That math doesn't add up.
Which means you can pretty much take this with a grain of salt:
Texans who plan to vote in next year's Republican primary for governor favor incumbent Rick Perry over his main challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, by a 33-21 margin, but the most common answer to that question was undecided, with 41 percent saying they haven't made up their minds. A small group — 1 percent — expressed support for state Rep. Leo Berman. Perry leads Hutchison among self-identified Republicans 40% to 18%, but that's also the group with the largest number of undecided voters, at 48%. Hutchison carries 49% of self-identified Democrats and Independents who say they plan to vote in the GOP primary, compared to 23% for Perry and 29% undecided.
One wonders how small the "non-Republicans who plan to vote in the GOP primary" subsample is. Honestly, it doesn't matter. Polling for primaries is tricky business under any circumstance, and in a poll that isn't specifically screening for likely primary participants, it's even less useful. The same can be said of the Democratic primary poll result, in which Kinky Friedman "led" the field with ten percent. So much for any claim of name recognition by the Kinkster. Speaking of which:
They're largely undecided on their favorite candidates for U.S. Senate, should Hutchison resign late this year and prompt a special election in May 2010. Given the choice of six Republicans and two Democrats who've expressed interest in that race, 71 percent said they either haven't decided or didn't want to say. Houston Mayor Bill White led the pack with 9%, followed by Attorney General Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, with 4%; Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones and former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, 3%; and state Sen. Florence Shapiro, former Comptroller John Sharp, and Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, at 2%. Sharp and White are Democrats; the others are Republicans.
Two percent for John Sharp? Are you kidding me? I realize this is a sample that's full of less-than-engaged people, but that's where being on the scene and on the ballot forever as Sharp has been is supposed to be an asset; the junkies already know who everybody is. Not exactly a confidence-builder, you know?
The survey also has approval ratings for Perry, Hutchison, and President Obama, who clocks in with 68% of the respondents saying he's done a "very" or "somewhat" good job as President, and for the Legislature, of whom 58% of respondents approve. That number for Obama is higher than his national ratings, and as for the Lege, I agree with Phillip: "I'm not even sure if 58% of the Texas legislature would approve of the Texas legislature." Happy bunch of people they surveyed, that's all I can say.
And after all that, they don't give us a general election matchup for Governor next year, which is the one result that could have been truly interesting. It could have been done as Perry and KBH each versus a generic Democrat, or either versus Kinky, Schieffer, and the now-not-running Van de Putte. Alas, they didn't do that.
Anyway. All polls are snapshots in time. This one is perhaps a bit fuzzier than others. Make of it what you will.
The Chamber of Commerce tax cut
I mentioned before that a secondary reason for Governor Perry to veto HB770 and its Wayne Christian Beach House provision was an amendment slipped in by State Sen. Mike Jackson to give a property tax exemption to local chambers of commerce. Ed Sills of the Texas AFL-CIO went off on a righteous rant about this in his email newsletter the other day, and I wanted to reproduce it here. With his permission, it's beneath the fold, so click on to read it.
Commissioners Court approves ethics measures
It's something.
The Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday approved a slate of ethics reforms, placing new controls on money and influence in government for the first time in years.
After months of infighting and setbacks, the court unanimously and without discussion passed several measures including online posting of officials' personal and financial disclosure forms, ethics training for all county employees and the voluntary registration of lobbyists.
County Judge Ed Emmett hailed the approval as a major stride toward increased accountability in county government. Emmett made ethics reform a centerpiece of his election campaign last year after controversies arose surrounding people with county connections.
"It's a great first step," Emmett said. "This sets out a good statement of principals, and I was glad to see a unanimous court move forward."
Still, the measures passed are weaker than those recommended by a task force Emmett himself assembled last year. Emmett appointed the panel to assess the county's ethics rules after the indictment of a former county department head, Mike Surface, and his business partner, Andrew Schatte. Their indictment followed concerns about Commissioner Jerry Eversole's questionable campaign spending and a history of vague disclosures.
Emmett's panel recommended the county create a board to investigate ethics complaints, require lobbyists to register. But enacting such reforms would have required approval from the state Legislature. Emmett instead decided to focus on what could be accomplished locally.
It's a decent first step, but it can't be all there is. Next time, there needs to be successful action in the Lege. I'm still dubious of Governor Perry's claim about the constitutionality of ethics legislation that's specific to Harris County, but if that is a concern, then let's make sure a joint resolution gets passed so this can be voted on as a Constitutional amendment. Same thing for the other items that didn't make it. Now that what could be accomplished locally has been accomplished, get the rest of it done in Austin. No excuses.
The best thing I've heard about my hometown in a long time
A Staten Island restaurant employs genuine Italian grandmothers to do the cooking.
The 35-seat Enoteca Maria takes home cooking to a whole new level by bringing in genuine Italian grandmothers to cook for customers.
Each night, one of eight nonnas ties on an apron, checks out the ingredients in the refrigerator and rustles up a down-to-earth meal.
The women are from different regions of the pasta-loving nation who have no problem cooking restaurant-style after years of feeding big families.
Tired of their husbands nitpicking over their specialties, they jumped at the chance to slave over a hot stove for grateful diners at the St. George eatery.
"When I come here, I can do whatever I want. I can bake whatever I want," said Teresa Scalici, 62, who has three kids and four grandchildren.
"My family have this everyday so they don't appreciate it anymore. I prefer it here, because the people love me," she added. "On Saturday nights the customers clap."
Damn, that's the best reason I've heard to visit SI in a long time. And if it's in Saint George, it's walkable from the ferry, so the rest of you New Yorkers can get there easily enough, too. Reading that story reminded me of my own Staten Island Italian grandmother, who I'll bet could have shown them a thing or two. Rest in peace, Red. We love you still.