The Bottom of the Ballot

I now interrupt my regularly scheduled postings of cute pictures of my cute kids to bring you this probably unwanted public service post...

Despite my high school government teacher's lectures to the contrary, my vote in this year's presidential election probably won't mean much, no matter which candidate I vote for.  As we all know, Texas is firmly red.  By a wide margin.  I'm neither celebrating nor bemoaning this.  I'm merely stating a fact.

So I decided -- why not take all that energy I've been wasting focusing on that race and put it towards an item on the November ballot that my one vote actually does have the power to influence:  The Metro Referendum!  I promise it is not as boring as it sounds!  And it potentially has far-ranging implications for the future of the quality of life for those living in Houston and Harris County.  Well, at least for those of us who regularly traverse Houston area roads in a car or on a bus or by rail and like to make it from Point A to Point B within a reasonable amount of time and without succumbing to road rage and shouting strings of vile profanity within earshot of our carseat-strapped kids that they inevitably repeat at school and cause an immediate parent/teacher conference and possibly a lifetime of therapy.

So what's the referendum about?  The GMP (general mobility plan).  Here's the GMP in a nutshell: Metro collects 1% of the sales tax revenues in its service area (roughly all of Harris County).  Under the GMP, it then turns around and allocates 25% of that 1% back to its constituent entities (City of Houston, City of West University, Katy, Humble, unincorporated Harris County, etc.) to be used for road maintenance/construction.  That 25% is a lot of money (about $2.4 billion since the program's inception, according to Metro's website).  The GMP is set to expire in 2014.  Voting YES on the referendum will continue the GMP to 2025 with a slight wrinkle to its current form which will allow Metro to keep approximately $400 million more in tax revenue going forward, provided that none of that $400 million dollars is used for anything except paying down debt and initiatives to increase ridership (i.e. no funds for rail projects).   Voting NO on the referendum will end the GMP and (theoretically) allow Metro to keep all of its 1% sales tax revenue.

Those in favor of voting YES on the referendum are Metro itself, Mayor Parker, the West University Place City Council, Harris County Commissioners Court, and several other local politicians.  It is easy to see why Mayor Parker and other local governmental entities would be in favor of the GMP:  it sends them money.  These governmental entities have been getting this money since around 1988 and they have become dependent upon it. 

Those advocating a vote of NO on the referendum are those who believe that by ending the GMP, Metro will finally have enough funds to continue the rail lines that the voters approved back in 2003.

The "NO" camp has done a fairly good job of painting this referendum as being about rail for two reasons:  (1) the provision in the referendum that Metro's additional funds cannot be used for rail, and (2) Rail costs money; the GMP is causing Metro to lose a lot of money; ergo, end the GMP and we'll get our rail projects back on track. 

But if you look closely at it, The "NO = more rail" argument doesn't exactly add up for a few reasons.  First, Metro itself has not firmly committed to a timeline to completing these rail projects in the event that the GMP is voted down.  Secondly, and more alarmingly, the Metro board isn't even publicly in favor of receiving the additional money.  Metro believes those governmental entities are not going to look at a "No" victory and just passively accept the loss.  They will fight, going to the state legislative level if necessary.  This fight will be a threat to business as usual, which is something that Metro, like all bureaucracies, tends to fear.  Thirdly, if past is prologue, it's not like Metro has shown itself to be a bastion of progress, good judgment, and sound transportation policies.  So will more money solve the institutional problems that have contributed to the agency's lack of effectiveness?  Or might the additional funds just get swallowed up by an inefficient bureaucratic behemoth? 

The "Yes" camp, on the other hand, has done a fairly good job of saying, don't worry, Metro still loves rail, we just can't afford it right now.  Hang tight until 2025.  But that doesn't really add up either.  Why would Metro agree to a restriction on the use of its own tax revenues?  The only possible explanation is that Metro believes that this referendum represents the best deal it can get with these governmental entities, whose real world political influence outweighs its own.  

So here we, as Houstonians, sit.  I personally am firmly pro-rail.  I think this city desperately needs to finish the plan it approved in 2003.  Our booming economy has caused massive inner-loop and suburban growth and, as a result, traffic.  And you just have to drive for a few minutes in the inner-loop area to see massive new apartment complexes going up at breakneck speed.  Traffic is only going to get worse.  "Would you ever actually ride the rail?," you may rightfully ask.  And the answer is and enthusiastic "YES!  I have and I would! My kids love trains!"

"Business as usual" when it comes to our public transportation system simply isn't cutting it.  But which vote will bring about the most positive change?  A "NO" victory would send the symbolic message -- "We don't want business as usual when it comes to this city's dismal public transportation!  We want to improve it!"  But would it improve anything in reality?  It strains credulity to believe that after all the fighting, Metro will end up keeping all of that 1%, and that even if they do keep it, that they'll do great things with it.  But a "YES" vote would mean that we will continue to trust Metro's current leadership to slowly but surely work its way towards making this very sprawling, bustling, booming city that we love into a place with a workable, user-friendly transit system.  Do they deserve our acquiescence to their business as usual approach?  Or is drastic action necessary?

Sitting here, today, I am inclined to vote NO.  Let's get the ball rolling towards positive change.  A YES vote feels like a stamp of approval to the status quo, and I do not feel one is deserved.  Will a NO vote mean that these rail lines get built in short order?  No, I don't think it will.  But it will send the local government a message that Houston is ready for improvement (any improvement!) in the transit arena, even if it means West University Place (where I live) will have to put its decorative street light initiative on hold or Katy (I love Katy!) will have to wait a while before it gets another new road.

As the saying goes, all politics is local, and it doesn't get much more local than this.  How will you vote on this issue?  The decision is of course yours to make.  And as a bonus, fighting about it over the dinner table will be highly unlikely to result in bloodshed.  (So, Dad, if you made it all the way through this post, read up on this issue.  Let's fight this one out.  It'll actually be fun.  And possibly even productive.)

Bravo to those of you who made it through this.  This post goes under the heading "It's my blog and I'll write about what I want to."  And now back to our regularly scheduled pictures of cute kids...