Showing posts with label Carol Alvarado. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carol Alvarado. Show all posts

Friday, January 18, 2019

#TXLEGE: Initial Thoughts on Senate Committee Assignments


"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

Senate Committee assignments are out:



Thoughts:
  • Schwertner out, Kolkhorst in, at HHS -- Given what we just said, to see Lois Kolkhorst take over for Charles Schwertner is...to put it mildly...ironic.

    Beyond that aspect, however, this is a strange assignment.  Kolkhorst's background is in Oil and Gas, not health care.  Why her?!?  Why here?!?

    It's not like there's a shortage of Doctors in the Texas Senate.
  • That being said, good precedent on Schwertner -- We've been arguing for over a year that loss of committee chairs was the most important sanction we could impose on legislators who engage in funny business.  However bizarre that route it took to get to this place might have been, that precedent is now established.
     
  • Seliger to chair new Ag. committee -- Tough to know what to make of this one.  On the one hand, it's easy to view it as a demotion.  On the other hand, it's also easy to see how this is a good fit with Seliger's district.

    Only time will tell.

    If it is a demotion, however, beware the wrath of Seliger down the line.
  • Solid Conservatives on Education
  • Creighton in at Higher Ed. -- Ummmmmm?!?

    We've never known Brandon Creighton to have any particular interest in Higher ed. issues.  So this is...odd.  On the one hand, Creighton has historically tended to vote solidly.  On the other hand, he's not somebody who likes to upset the apple cart.

    Tough to know how that breaks on Higher Ed. issues.

    Longhorn.
  • Buckingham in at Nominations -- This could be interesting.

    Last session, Dawn Buckingham was the only Senator who even showed a pulse during the UT regent confirmation process.  We have no idea if they will be, but Regent confirmations should be an even bigger issue this session.  None of them are great, but Buckingham's record on this subject is less bad that most of the others.

    That being said, if Buckingham puts down her foot on regent confirmations, Watson, Seliger, and Alvarado will go BALLISTIC.  We have no idea how that plays out.  But it would be really entertaining to watch.  If nothing else, it would be a healthy debate to have in public.

    We've also signed onto the coalition letter related to the Sec'y of State confirmation.
  • Plum assignments for Flores
  • Business as usual for Borris Miles -- Obviously, he doesn't have a chairmanship to lose but Economic Development and HHS are...not bad.
Bottom Line: No obvious roadblocks on any major issues.  Couple interesting personnel moves.  We shall see.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

#TXLEGE: First major #SpecialSession day of House committee hearings.....


"Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy!
For You shall judge the people righteously,
And govern the nations on earth. Selah"
Psalm 67:4

[Note: We'll post links to the videos as they become available.]

The House had its first major day of committee hearings today.  We signed up to testify on seven bills and deliverd that testimony on four.  Bills we support will be listed in green, bills about which we are neutral will be listed in yellow, and bills we oppose will be listed in red.
  • HB 70 (Workman): "Relating to a property owner's right to remove a tree or vegetation."

    We testified in favor of the House version of the tree bill in the Urban Affairs committee.  We echoed the property rights related arguments you've seen delivered elsewhere.  We also pointed out that trees usually add value to a property, which means that property owners rarely want to cut them down, but in the cases where it's necessary they shouldn't have to wade through a cumbersome process to do so.

    But, let's be honest: This is not the first time this author has testified in front of the Urban Affairs committee this session.  We testified in favor of two separate property rights related bills in this committee during the regular session, and the Democrat committee chair refused to vote either one out of committee.  As chair of the urban affairs committee, Carol Alvarado has a bad recent record on moving property rights related bills.
  • HB 71 (Bohac): "Relating to the limitation on increases in the appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation."

    We testified in favor of this bill in the Ways and Means committee.  To be honest, we were pleasantly surprised that Dennis Bonnen chose to give it a hearing.  It's well within the bounds of the special session call.

    The short version of why we support this bill is because there's two places to reign in the property tax system: the appraisal and the rate; while we fully support the discussion related to tax rates that's been generating more attention, we'd also love to do something about the appraisal system.
  • HB 124 (GREG Bonnen): "Relating to the date for ordering or holding an election to ratify the ad valorem tax rate of a school district."

    We signed up to testify on this bill in Ways and Means but were out of the room when our name was called.

    This bill would require tax ratification elections for school districts to be held alongside November general elections; this would make it harder for school districts to game the system by calling tax ratification elections at strange time where only district employees show up to vote.
  • HJR 18 (Howard): "Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the state to pay at least 50 percent of the cost of maintaining and operating the public school system and prohibiting the comptroller from certifying legislation containing an appropriation unless the requirement is met."

    We testified neutrally on this bill in the Appropriations committee.

    As we explained in our testimony in the school finance testimony yesterday, we don't think it's entirely crazy to say that the state should pick up a greater share of the education tab.  But, for that deal to make sense, the additional state funding needs to be accompanied by some form of structural reform to the system or dollar for dollar reductions in local property taxes (preferably both).  But the house seems to really, really want to do a school finance package and we want to make clear what we would need to see to become interested.
  • HB 80 (Darby):  "Relating to a cost-of-living adjustment applicable to certain benefits paid by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas."

    We were out of the room when we were called to testify on this bill in Appropriation but we oppose it because it pours more money into the current broken system without any reform.

    Appropriations also considered multiple bills related to raiding the rainy day fund to pay for teacher health care, which would be a terrible idea.
  • HB 3 (Dennis Bonnen): "Relating to ad valorem taxation; authorizing fees."

    This is the property tax transparency bill Bonnen started pushing late in the regular session when the he was unable to get the automatic rollback election bill out of his committee.  We testified in favor of the bill as an improvement over current law.  But we also made it clear that we did not consider this bill sufficient to call the 85th legislative session successful on property taxes.

    This led to a moderately contentious exchange with Bonnen about the relative merits of transparency vs. automatic rollbacks.  Bonnen attempted to argue that we were saying that we'd be fine with taxing entities raising taxes just up to the limit into perpetuity.  We pointed out to the chairman that moving from a forgiveness based system to a permission based system was the biggest thing anyone was discussing at the moment.

    Another fun fact we realized after discussion of this bill: Mayor Adler also testified in favor of this bill; while this isn't the first time Mayor Adler and this author have agreed on an issue, the fact that he's supporting it should tell you everything you need to know about the practical effect it will have.
  • HB 4 (Dennis Bonnen): "Relating to the calculation of the ad valorem rollback tax rate of a taxing unit and voter approval of a proposed tax rate that exceeds the rollback tax rate."

    We had to leave before Bonnen called us to testify, but considering we'd had a sharp exchange of views during the previous bill he knows why this authors supports this bill.

    That being said, the most notable aspect of the testimony on this bill was that the local officials all showed up and lost their minds in opposition to this bill; had we been able to stick around, we would have pointed out to the chair that those people being that upset should tell you everything you need to know about which of his two bills would have had a greater impact.

    It's also worth pointing out that Drew Springer and even one of the Democrats on the committee grew visibly exasperated with some of the disingenuous claims made by the local officials; we'll see what that means for getting this bill out of committee.
Bottom Line: We'll know how quickly these bills are moving in a couple days.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

#TXLEGE: Early #SpecialSession Battle Lines Drawn


"A whip for the horse,
A bridle for the donkey,
And a rod for the fool’s back."
Proverbs 26:3

We attended this morning's trib event with Carol Alvarado, Drew Darby, and Matt Schaefer; the TL,DR version is that Alvarado was crankier than usual, Darby doubled down on support for Straus (while explicitly coming out against property tax reform), and Shaefer thrived in the face of a withering assault from Alvarado and the audience.




Highlights:

  • Schaefer: Call items = "conservative home run."
  • Alvarado calls Schaefer "obsessed" with protecting life.
    • Note: Guilty as charged.
  • Darby: Straus "not a hands on speaker."
    • Note: Bullshit.
    • "If we [the house members] don't want a bill to move, it's not going to move."
  • Alvarado endorses Straus' "school finance is the only way to lower property taxes" nonsense.
    • More Accurate Headline: Democrat echoes Straus' position on property taxes.
  • Alvarado calls the rule of law "anti-freedom."
  • Darby compares Abbott holding legislators accountable to parents threatening children during Christmas.
    • "I object."
  • Alvarado: "I'm going to be holding hearings on substantive issues" in Urban affairs.
  • Alvarado: Revenue caps in Houston haven't worked.
    • Note: LOL
  • Darby: "The House's position on these issues hasn't changed."
    • "I am not going to change my position."
  • Schaefer: "There was a slowness to the work of the House" during the regular session.
  • Alvarado calls teacher pay increase "unfair to local school districts."
    • Endorses raiding Rainy Day fund as alternative.
  • Darby throws privacy act under the bus.
  • Alvarado keeps door open on busting quorum.
  • Darby, in response to question from this author: "I'm opposed to any lowering of the rollback rate" on property taxes.
    • Note: We worded our question to Darby about property taxes very specifically see if he would pivot to discussing his property tax bills as an alternative to changing the rollback formula.  He did not.  Thus, it seems unlikely that Darby any intention of pursuing those bills and merely filed them as election season CYA.
-----

Representative Drew Darby: (512) 463-0331

Friday, July 14, 2017

#TXLEGE: Wrapping up our testimonies from the 85th Regular Session....


"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32

[Note: A very big, public, THANK YOU to Buddy Kipp of Empower Texans for pulling the video from the legislature's website.]

We've finally gotten our legislative testimonies from the regular session online; presented in chronological order.
  • 3/14/2017 -- SB 113: "Relating to the provision of and local regulation of certain for-hire passenger transportation." [Note: This was Don Huffines version of the Uber bill that would have completely deregulated ALL ground transportation.] (Original Post)

  • 3/14/2017 -- SB 451: "Relating to regulation of short-term rentals and short-term rental marketplaces by municipalities and counties."

  • 3/23/2017 -- SB 19: "Relating to performance-based tuition limitations for and a temporary limitation on the amount of tuition and fees charged by certain public institutions of higher education. (Original Post)

  • 3/27/2017 -- SB 445: "Relating to the authorization and reporting of expenditures for lobbying activities by certain political subdivisions and other public entities." (Original Post)

  • 4/11/2017 -- HB 3418: "Relating to municipal zoning affecting places or areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance." (Original Post)

  • 4/18/2017 -- HB 2551: "Relating to regulation of short-term rentals by municipalities and counties." (Original Post)

  • 4/26/2017 -- SB 1151: "Relating to the protection of expressive activities at public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)

  • 5/11/2017 -- HB 100: "Relating to the regulation of transportation network companies; requiring an occupational permit; authorizing a fee." (Original Post)

  • 5/11/2017 -- CSHB 21: "Relating to the funding of primary and secondary education." (Original Post)

  • 5/15/2017 -- HB 17: "Relating to the establishment of the Texas Higher Education Innovation Accelerator for public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)

  • 5/17/2017 -- SB 822: "Relating to the transfer of certain property from The University of Texas System to the Parks and Wildlife Department." (Original Post)

  • 5/17/2017 -- SB 19: "Relating to performance-based tuition limitations for and a temporary limitation on the amount of tuition and fees charged by certain public institutions of higher education." (Original Post)

Monday, June 5, 2017

#TXLEGE: On the issues, grading the 85th (Regular Session Edition)....


"Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:20

[Note: Our assessment of the 84th can be viewed here.]

It's that time of the political cycle!  The regular session of the 85th Texas Legislature is over.  How'd they do?!?

Border Security: B -- They passed the Sanctuary cities bill and maintained border security funding in the budget; if border security is one of your top issues, you can't deny that they made tangible progress on this issue this session.

But we've publicly stated doubts about whether the approach behind the sanctuary cities bill will ultimately accomplish it's stated objective, and we've found the discussion to be very theatrical.

In other words, they notched a couple of first downs but missed other opportunities to reach the end zone.

Pro-Life: B -- The top realistically achievable pro-life priority, the dismemberment abortion ban, was successful.  In addition, we had a couple of pro-life victories in the budget.  But we'll repeat what we said two years ago: "The only reason meaningful pro-Life legislation passed this session was the dogged and indefatigable work of Texas Right to Life."

Unfortunately, for no reason besides political spite, House leadership killed efforts to eliminate abortion subsidies in the health insurance market and to prohibit involuntary due not resuscitate orders in hospitals.

Finally, while it had no realistic path to 76 votes, for Byron Cook to kill the abolition bill without a hearing speaks for itself.

Austin Bashing: C -- The Uber bill crossed the finish line.  On housing issues, they lost linkage fees.   And it's not a secret that a number of local politicians have cynically grandstanded over sanctuary cities.

But the overwhelming majority of bills to reign in the City of Austin's abusive practices died in House committees chaired by Democrats.  Pro-property rights bills related to historical zoning and short term rentals died in Carol Alvarado's Urban Affairs committee, while bills to stop micromanaging hiring practices and pre-empt tree cutting ordinances were slow walked in Rene Olivera's Business and Industry committee.  Alvarado and Olivera killed several other bills without hearings.  It's worth noting that none of Paul Workman's Austin bashing bills were successful.

Finally, an attempt to prohibit other forms of housing price controls died late in the Senate.

Religious Liberty: C -- Conscience protections for adoption service providers successfully passed and that's a pretty big deal.  In addition, efforts to reign in some of the most abusive actions we saw in  the 2014/15 Houston saga were successful.  Both of those are fairly substantial victories.

But any number of other religious liberty bills died in the House.

It wasn't terrible, but it was underwhelming.

Higher Education: D [Note: Senate C, House F] -- The good news: The Senate passed strong bills on tuition and free speech.  Unfortunately, both predictably died in the House.  Nevertheless, those Senate bills are a solid foundation from which to build in future sessions.

The bad news: In the one place where the Senate had leverage and the House was irrelevant...the Senate rubber stamped the damn regent nominees.  Thus, we expect the higher ed. status quo to continue in the short term.  In addition, the Senate caved and increased higher ed. funding in the budget.

The only reason we're giving them a passing grade is because UT had to back down on the Houston land grab.

Ethics: D [Note: Senate A, House D] -- The first bill the Senate unanimously passed was an ethics bill that would have accomplished the following objectives: "barring politicians convicted of a felony from holding office or drawing a pension, requiring lawmakers to disclose government contracts, bond counsel, and legal referral fees, enacting more effective disclosure of lobbyist wining and dining of legislators, and banning elected officials from being employed as lobbyists while in office and eliminating the “revolving door” by adding a one session cooling-off period before former lawmakers can become lobbyists."  In addition, the Senate began the process of reigning in taxpayer funded lobbying.  Over the course of this session we have become convinced that eliminating taxpayer funded lobbying is, by far, the most important ethics reform the legislature could make.

Unfortunately, the only parts of that package that survived the House were the parts about barring pensions for convicted felons and a watered down form of contract disclosure.

Finally, it's worth noting the degree to which the House has treated Greg Abbott with contempt over this topic.  For the past two sessions, the Guvnah has made ethics reform an emergency item, to only receive the crumbs from House leadership we detailed in the preceding paragraph.  That Abbott won't even fight for his own stated priorities is quite revealing.

Two Year Budget: D -- We said our piece about the budget two weeks ago but the TL,DR version is that the this budget met the bare minimum standard (kept the top line number under inflation+population growth) but went no further and funded a lot of garbage.

Tax Relief: F [Note: Senate B, House F] In one of the highest profile discussions of the session, the Senate passed a bill that would have begun the process of structurally reforming the property tax system; the Senate bill didn't go far enough, but it was a fairly significant step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, due to a combination of incompetence and mendacity from Ways and Means chairman Dennis Bonnen, that effort collapsed in the House; we detailed Dennis Bonnen's debacle in real time.

They didn't even get margins tax elimination across the finish line.

Second Amendment: F -- Constitutional carry remains undone.  Mom's Demand Action bragged about having a successful session.  Case closed.

Education: F [Note: Senate A-, House F] -- While they had to modestly water it down to get to 19 votes, the Senate passed the strongest parental educational choice bill the legislature has ever considered.

In the House, Chairman Dan Huberty thumbed his nose at the Republican party platform and killed parental choice.  The House followed up with a budget vote that further illustrated their loyalty to government bureaucrats over parents and children.  Huberty also attempted to use a shady process to pass a "school finance" bill that would have accomplished little besides pouring additional money into the same failing system.

The only silver lining is that when the school finance bill made it to the Senate, they rewrote it in a way that might point the way towards a long term compromise.

"Fit hits the Shan" Preparation: F -- For as little as was getting done this session, we thought there was a decent chance grid security could pass, but it ultimately didn't; right to use cash legislation and the Texas Sovereignty act similarly died.

Structural Fiscal Reforms: F [Note: Senate A, House F] -- For future state budgets, the Senate passed a strong spending limit bill in late March.

In addition, the Senate took a hard look at various corporate welfare programs, 'economic development' shenanigans at the local level, and ballot integrity for local bond elections; these are a strong foundation on which to build future efforts.

None of these efforts went anywhere in the House.

Transportation: Incomplete -- As far as we can tell they didn't do anything terrible (though they tried), but neither did they do anything particularly good.

Overall, we would give the Senate a B and the House an F.

Bottom Line: The good news is that most of the bad stuff died; the bad news is that most of the good stuff also died.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

#TXLEGE: Charlie Geren marries Karl Rove crony....

From Left to Right: Kelly Hancock, Geanie Morrison, Carol Alvarado, Kel Seliger, Charlie Geren, the New Mrs. Geren, Joe Straus, Drew Darby, and Four Price.

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”
1 Corinthians 15:33

Via Carol Alvarado's (natch) twitter:

Mindy Geren (nee. Elmer) is a well known lobbyist around the Capitol.  During the past legislative session, Geren and Elmer were accused of conflicts of interest related to legislation he was carrying and her position as an AT&T lobbyist.  In fairness to the Gerens, this website thinks those specific accusations are an exaggerated nothing-burger.  [Update 3/1/2018: Given everything we've learned during the 2018 primary campaign, we retract the crossed out sentence and want to emphasize that Charlie Geren is such a sociopath that there's nothing we'd put past him.]

That being said, when a bill to close a loophole that allows lobbyists to hide how much they're spending to wine and dine legislators dies in committee, it does strike one as notable when the bill author marries a lobbyist the day after sine die:


But our favorite Mindy Geren story, including her close connections with Karl Rove, can be viewed here.

Bottom Line: We suppose that, on a personal level, we wish the Gerens the best....

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

#TXLEGE: Short Term Rental bills move forward in both chambers


"A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor,
But he who hates covetousness will prolong his days."
Proverbs 28:16

[Note: The House hearing can be viewed here; the STR bill begins about 3ish hours into the broadcast and our testimony is two hours after the bill discussion began.]

Big news out of the legislature on short term rentals; first up, the Senate voted their bill out of the full chamber today:
A Senate bill that would limit local government control of short-term home rentals in Texas passed out of the upper chamber Tuesday in a 21-9 vote.

Under Senate Bill 451 by state Sen. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, Texas cities would be prevented from banning short-term rentals and their ability to write ordinances restricting the practice would be narrowed. Austin, San Antonio and Fort Worth are among the cities that have enacted such restrictions.

....

Among local policies that would be limited in scope by Hancock's bill: a Fort Worth regulation that requires property owners to obtain a bed-and-breakfast permit only available to homes built before 1993 and an ordinance in Austin that has capped the number of short-term rentals with no live-in owners.
Meanwhile, the House just wrapped up hearing their companion bill; to be honest, the House hearing was more of what anyone who's been following this debate has come to expect.

Supporters of the bill shared stories of small scale entrepreneurship and the benefits to their families and communities that resulted.  The attacks on their property rights threatened those accomplishments.  After being attacked by cities like Austin and Ft. Worth, they're coming to the legislature for help.

Mayor Adler waiting to testify

Mayor Adler testified against the bill and attempted to obfuscate the difference between owner occupied and owner offsite short term rentals.  While only the latter are fully banned, Austin's ordinance imposes many of the same requirements on owner occupied units.  For example, the limitations over how many people can be present on the property applies regardless.  Of course, Adler knows this and he was attempting misdirection with the community.  In addition to his suggestion to the Mayor that Austin eliminate zoning entirely, we enjoyed watching Representative Gary Elkins school the Mayor on property rights.

Mayor Adler was joined in opposition by hotel industry trade associations, taxpayer funded lobbyists, and 'urban planning' professionals.  There were also a couple of local Austin homeowners who shared horror stories about being next to bad STR properties.  While we understand the awfulness of the situation they faced, that doesn't change the fact that the issues with which they dealt could have been addressed by enforcing the noise/nuisance ordinances the city already had on the books.

We testified about the frightening enforcement powers the City of Austin claimed for itself out of thin air.  The Austin STR ordinance empowers the city code department to perform warantless searches on any property they suspect of being a type-2 STR at any time with no warning.  Note that we didn't say the police department has this authority (which we also wouldn't support, but for which we could see a justification)...we said the code department.  It doesn't take a genius to see how this this type of authority could grow into something really dangerous.  Likewise, in a committee with a Democrat chair (Carol Alvarado), it seemed prudent to mention that in the wrong hands this type of authority could be used in a racially discriminatory way.

Bottom Line: We'll have to see what happens, but these bills are far enough in the process that there's still time.

-----

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

#TXLEGE: House considers limiting "historical" zoning designations....

Former Austin Historic Landmark Commission member Arif Panj testifies

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?"
Matthew 20:15

[Note: HB 3418 is the final bill under consideration here; our testimony can be found at the 2:44:20 mark.]

[Note II: Learn more about the history of this issue in Austin here and here and here.]

This afternoon, the Texas House committee on Urban Affairs heard HB 3418 (Elkins).  Elkins' bill would create objective criteria for "historic" designations and require a 75% super-majority requirement for a city council to zone something historic against the property owners will.  Abuses of historic designations to inhibit housing construction is a problem that has been growing in recent years in Austin that can spread statewide if the legislature doesn't nip it in the bud.

An important note: Rep. Elkins' bill only pertains to historical designations that are done against the property owners will.  This bill has no impact on historic zoning when the property owner is in agreement.  This bill only becomes relevant when a city (usually at the behest of a politically powerful neighborhood association)

One central Austin home-builder testified that the historic designation process delayed a project upon which he was working for nine months and added an additional $300k to the cost.  That translated to an additional $10,000 per house for the final buyer.  How many people will no longer be able to afford the house with the additional $10,000?!?

Former state rep Burt Solomons testified that neighborhood associations try to exhaust property owners by dragging out the time and expense involved in these processes.  Another Austin resident testified that the City refused to allow tearing down a house that had been condemned as uninhabitable because it was zoned historic.  We testified that the abuses are well documented and that the bill eliminates uncertainty (our one regret is that we neglected to mention the threat this poses to other cities if Austin is allowed to get away with it).

The highlight of the afternoon was the testimony of former Austin historic landmark commission member Arif Panju.  Arif testified that in his two years on the historic landmark commission, he only saw "7 or 8" cases come before the commission where the property owner was in agreement with the designation.  Likewise, Arif stated that historical zoning is being used to "keep people out" of neighborhood rather than any legitimate purpose.

As to the opponents: They were primarily bureaucrats from various urban "preservation" offices around the state.  They said about what you would expect them to say about how there's no problem with anything they're doing and that we just don't understand the issue.  Still, a couple remarks do stand out.  One gentleman who used to work with the state preservation board opposed the bill and called for more funding for "training."  Another opponent claimed there are 'trade-offs" involving private property rights when you move into an urban area.

Bottom Line: The bill was left pending, and a substitute is working its way through lege council, but it's a pleasant surprise to see the legislature take up this issue.

-----

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

#TXLEGE: House Urban Affairs committee hearing illustrates why housing is an expensive cluster[REDACTED]....


"Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness,"
2 Corinthians 9:10

The House Urban Affairs committee heard testimony today on an aspect of a state run (but federally funded) subsidized housing program this afternoon.  To be honest, we found the entire discussion infuriating.  If local governments didn't deliberately use zoning and permitting regulations to make it excessively complicated (ie. expensive) to build, there's wouldn't be a constituency for these types of subsidized housing programs in the first place.

The specific program is one that gives the local state rep a de facto veto over subsidized housing developments within their district.  This actually became a gigantic issue in Austin last year.  But the specific program is a symptom, the fact that local governments make it virtually impossible to build is the disease.

A representative from the Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing providers called regulations, zoning, and permitting: "a pretty intense process."  In context, he was arguing against engaging the local state rep in the process because they weren't intimately familiar with those things.  But, unintentionally, he made the case for why those processes should be dramatically simplified (if not outright eliminated).

The most infuriating part is that, while subsidized housing will never be sufficient to meaningfully impact affordability for the general population, it drives up housing costs for everyone who doesn't receive a subsidy.  Case in point: the program discussed today had about 2570 recent recipients in Harris County and 213 in Collin...but those are areas that have millions of people in the case of Harris and hundreds of thousands in the case of Collin.  Furthermore, decisions about who receives subsidized housing tends to be based on political connections rather than genuine need.

To his credit, Jason Isaac seemed to understand that these programs can't ever be sufficient but do make things more expensive for the rest of us; we encourage him to trust his instincts.

At this point, quoting Reagan has become a tiresome cliche, but we can think of nowhere where this one is more appropriate: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Bottom Line: Subsidies can never fix the problems regulation creates.

Friday, December 9, 2016

(U of H Board Chairman) Tilman Fertitta's (recent) political donations


"And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home."
Luke 16:9

It's not a secret, between the land grab and the Tom Herman hire, that those within U of H circles are livid with UT.  We were still struck by a rather...bold...comment from U of H Board Chairman Tilman Fertitta following the Herman hire.  That got us thinking: If Tilman Fertitta starts making phone calls around the legislature next session, who's likely to listen?!?

We reviewed Texas "Ethics" Commission data for the past two election cycles.  Fertitta appears to be a pretty typical big money donor in that he donates to everyone regardless of ideology.  For the most part, he donates within Harris County, although there are some interesting ones outside of the area as well.

Results are mostly presented in the order in which they appear on the "Ethics" commission website.  The primary exception is that we moved statewide officials to the top of the list.  Former members of the legislature who will not return next session have been excluded.

The list:

  • Greg Abbott: $404,000
  • Dan Patrick: $189,723
    • Author's Note: To his credit, Fertitta gave to Patrick during the 2014 primary but does not appear to have given to David Dewhurst.
  • Ken Paxton: $25,000
    • Note: Again, to his credit, he gave to Paxton during the 2014 runoff but does not appear to have given to Dan Branch.
  • Glenn Hegar: $50,000
  • George P. Bush: $15,000
  • Joe Straus: $35,000
  • Joan Huffman: $25,000
  • John Whitmire: $45,000
  • Senfonia Thompson: $3,500
  • Craig Goldman: $1,000
  • Ana Hernandez: $2,000
  • Dennis Paul: $1,000
  • Charles Schwertner: $3,500
  • Dan Huberty: $2,000
  • Kelly Hancock: $12,500
  • Gene Wu: $2000
  • Donna Campbell: $3,500
  • Sylvia Garcia: $5,000
  • Van Taylor: $2,500
  • Konni Burton: $2,500
  • Paul Bettencourt: $7,500
  • Trent Ashby: $1,000
  • Charles Perry: $2,500
  • John Zerwas: $2,500
    • Author's Note: House Higher ed committee chairman last session.
  • Byron Cook: $2,500
  • Alma Allen: $2,000
  • Lyle Larson: $1,000
  • Brian Birdwell: $3,500
  • Todd Hunter: $2,500
  • Chuy Hinojosa: $1,000
  • Will Metcalf: $1,000
  • Jose Menendez: $1,000
  • John Keumpel: $1,000
  • Sarah Davis: $1,000
  • Phil King: $2,000
  • Garnet Coleman: $2,000
  • Jim Murphy: $2,000
  • Oscar Longoria: $1,000
  • Mike Schofield: $2,000
  • Hubert Vo: $2,000
  • Jane Nelson: $2,500
  • Armando Walle: $1,000
  • Dennis Bonnen: $3,500
  • Craig Estes: $2,500
  • Ed Thompson: $1,000
  • Robert Nichols: $1,000
  • Larry Taylor: $5,000
  • Dwayne Bohac: $1,000
  • Geanie Morrison: $1,000
  • Lois Kolkhorst: $2,500
  • Travis Clardy: $2,000
  • Charlie Geren: $1,000
  • Dan Flynn: $2,000
    • Author's Note: Oh, fun....

Monday, November 14, 2016

Texas Democrats resume valiant defense of...TAMPONS?!?


"But they are altogether dull-hearted and foolish;
A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine."
Jeremiah 10:8

For those unaware, today is the first day legislators could file bills for the upcoming #TXLEGE session; two separate Democrats filed bills that are wildly amusing to those of us who remember the tampon trampoline from four years ago.

HB 55, by Guillen:

HB55 - 85 (R) by Cahnman on Scribd



HB 232, by Alvarado (yes, THAT Alvarado):
HB232 - 85 (R) by Cahnman on Scribd


Bottom Line: With all due respect to Texas Democrats, this is why nobody takes you seriously.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Alvarado Letter RIPS UT System's Houston Expansion


"He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck,
Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."
Proverbs 29:1

We obtained the following letter from the UT system via open records request.  Remember, Carol Alvarado was Dan Flynn's co-chair on the Wallace Hall impeachment committee.  For those unaware, Alvarado is from Houston:



Bottom Line: When you've lost the co-chair of the Wallace Hall Impeachment committee....