Where does Texas' sharing economy go from here?!? (Also: #TROXROX)

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”
Mark 2:22

This afternoon, TPPF held a policy orientation panel entitled "Where does Texas' sharing economy go from here?!?"  #atxcouncil member Ellen Troxclair was joined by Senator Don Huffines and representatives from HomeAway and Uber.  The panel touched on past unpleasantness before examining the future for Short term rentals and transportation.

Senator Huffines opened with a discussion of economic liberty, explaining "I believe in the free market."  Senator Huffines decried incumbent industries "legislating away their competition" and pointed out that taxi companies did so "decades ago." Councilmember Troxclair echoed the point and reminded that the legacy taxi industry showed no interest in reducing their own regulatory burden during the discussion in Austin two years ago.  The Uber representative stated that, while their primary goal was regulatory certainty for their business, they'd love to takes a "deregulate the taxis" approach but that the taxi companies were the ones who wouldn't come to the table.

On short-term rentals, the HomeAway rep was optimistic about their chances to pass a bill next session.  Because other cities beyond Austin have begun to abuse their authority, she believed legislators who hadn't previously given the issue much thought were coming around.  She also pointed to Florida and Arizona as states with the best short-term rental laws.  For our part, we pointed out during Q&A that the only reason this bill failed last session was because it was referred (and ultimately killed) to a house committee with a Democrat committee chair who had been a previous president of the Texas Municipal League.

Council member Troxclair called Austin's current STR regulations "completely ineffective."  She pointed out that four properties were responsible for an inordinate amount of the complaints under the old rules.  She also explained that STR regulations weren't actually eliminating short term rentals, but simply driving them underground (which means that the spend-a-holic city government loses a source of revenue).

Other obvserstations:

• Uber "very concerned" about potential sick leave mandate from the City of Austin.

• Uber hoping to deploy early stage aerial vehicles in DFW in 2023; will require significant interface with the FAA.

• Last session, lege passed a bill to pre-empt municipal regulations on autonomous vehicles.

• 96% of auto collisions are driver related; autonomous vehicles eliminate almost all of them.
• Note: This is why autonomous vehicles are way, way, way safer than traditional automobiles.

• Uber began to investigate using their platform for search and rescue purposes after Hurricane Harvey.

• Short Term rentals typically have longer stays, and more repeat business, than traditional hotels; this frequently makes STR guests more respectful of the surrounding neighborhoods than comparable hotel guests.

Bottom Line: For as much as it fell short, last session's Uber bill was nevertheless an important signal to the marketplace.  More work remains to be done, but Texas is already an attractive place to do business.  If we can preempt future municipal debacle like the 2016 era unpleasantness in Austin, some really exciting things are going to happen (especially in transportation) over the next few years.

#TXLEGE: Abbott makes serious proposal re: Capitiol Culture of Chronic Sexual Abuse (but questions remain)

"However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay with her."
2 Samuel 13:14

Since the first (recent) reports of chronic sexual abuse in the legislature first surfaced three months ago, we've been waiting for someone, anyone, to make a serious proposal to address the situation.  The new house policy, passed by Charlie Geren, was as pathetic as we predicted.  The Senate, meanwhile, is twiddling its thumbs.

Yesterday, Governor Abbott stepped into the vacuum:

Following accusations of sexual misconduct against multiple state legislators, Abbott proposed that the Texas Rangers’ Public Integrity Unit be placed in charge of investigating these reports. The governor's office estimates that charging the Rangers with the task would require $2 million in funding.

“By allowing these cases to be reported to the Texas Rangers ... we can ensure that claims are investigated by an impartial law enforcement body that is equipped to hold public servants accountable,” Abbott said.

This is...interesting.

The good news: In the three months that recent reports have been out, this is the first time anyone in a position of real power has made a serious proposal on this issue.  Obviously, this website has been critical of Governor Abbott over the past couple years.  But, he's the first person to make anything remotely resembling a serious suggestion, so we applaud him.

Furthermore, the Texas Rangers might be a good entity to investigate claims; they have a good reputation, and they know how to do this work.

Nevertheless, some questions:

• What happens with behavior that isn't criminal?!? -- The Texas Rangers are a law enforcement organization.  That means their primary purpose is to gather evidence for criminal prosecutions.  But, in many of these cases, the objectionable behavior isn't necessarily illegal.
  
  For example: Borris Miles forcibly kissing a woman probably constitutes some form of assault.  But Borris Miles aggressively propositioning an intern or Carlos Uresti inquiring about a woman's underwear, while disgusting and horrid, probably isn't criminal.  The criminal justice system can handle cases involving physical assault, but it's not well equipped to handle verbal harassment or intimidation.
  
  Will the Texas Rangers have jurisdiction in non-criminal cases?!?  If not, do we want to give it to them?!?  What would the unintended consequences of such a move be in 20 years?!?

• What sanctions will exist for bad actors?!? -- The Texas Rangers will probably be able to investigate claims well...but what happens once they find something?!?
  
  Are there going to be any actual penalties for this behavior?!?
  
  In this website's opinion, two specific sanctions would go the furthest: Loss of committee chairmanships and expulsion from the chamber; so far, neither of those are under discussion.
• How long will investigations take?!? -- The Texas Legislature only has 140 days to complete its business.  Everybody knows that "delay equals death" in the legislature.  What will prevent investigations from dragging out until the session is already over anyway?!?
  
  The slow-moving, bureaucratic, nature of government is bad enough...but once you add that members might have an incentive to move things as slowly as possible, it doesn't take a genius how this sort of policy could be rendered toothless.
  
  Two weeks seems like a reasonable amount of time after the survivor has come forward, but that's not currently under discussion.

• When will the public be informed?!? -- One of the reasons the culture of chronic sexual abuse at the Capitol became so entrenched is because everything gets handled behind closed doors.
  
  Will the public learn at the beginning of an investigation?!?  At its conclusion?!?  Or is the type of thing that will require regular and diligent open records requests?!?
  
  Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that.

• Do these proposed changes require the legislature to pass a bill -- If so, see what the house did with Abbott's proposed ethics reforms the past two sessions.
  
  [Note: Isn't it interesting that Charlie Geren, the same guy who killed Abbott's ethics reforms, is also in charge of the new sexual harassment policy.]

• Will Abbott follow through?!? -- You'll pardon us if we've seen this movie before.  Greg Abbott holds a high profile press conference where he says everything you want to hear.  Then, when the rubber meets the road, his personal involvement is...inconsistent at best.
  
  For example: In 2017, Abbott outlined a great special session agenda.  Then, during the special session, Abbott was nowhere to be found, and only about 30% of the good elements of his agenda passed.  Then Abbott promises to hold the legislators who killed his agenda accountable.  While Abbott has endorsed against three of the afore mentioned legislators, he's also let at least half a dozen others off the hook.  Again...inconsistent at best.
  
  When it comes to Greg Abbott, at this point, actions speak a lot louder than anything he says at a high profile press conference during an election year.

Bottom Line: Governor Abbott is the first prominent elected official to make a serious proposal.  For that, he deserves credit.  But we need to work through several more questions before we can have any confidence that behavior in the legislature will change.

#TXLEGE: The Three Most Important Senate Primaries

"So teach us to number our days,
That we may gain a heart of wisdom."
Psalm 90:12

[Note: Sure as heck ain't this one.]

[Note II: Ask us about Seliger's race once we get into the runoff.]

The following three races will determine the course of the Texas Senate next session.

Conservative Incumbent being challenged by RINO:

SD 2: Bob Hall vs. Cindy Burkett

In 2014, Bob Hall knocked off a liberal Republican incumbent on a shoestring budget.  The past two sessions, Bob Hall has kept his word and supported of all aspects of the conservative agenda.  Property tax reform?!? Check.  Border issues?!?  Check.  Pro-Life?!?  Check.  Higher ed. tuition freeze?!?  Check.  The various pro-property rights issues discussed during the 85th special session?!?  Check.  We could go on.

Bob Hall has also shown tremendous leadership raising the profile of electric grid security.  He hosted a major conference on the topic in 2016, and tried to get it added to the 2017 special session agenda.  It's also worth pointing out that, if any Senator is going to be carrying a BITCOIN bill in 2019, it'll probably be Bob Hall.

There's a reason why every major conservative group in Texas has endorsed Bob Hall.

Cindy Burkett, by contrast, is a liberal spendaholic who supports throwing more money into the socialized education status quo.  She went along with house leadership killing property tax reform last session.  Burkett's endorsement list is a fine collection of crony capitalists, fake 'pro-life' organizations, and public sector unions.

Speaking of pro-life, one note: Because Cindy Burkett is in no way, shape, or form a fiscal conservative, she's greatly exaggerating her pro-life record.  While it's true that Burkett has carried some pro-life bills, those bills were toothless as Burkett originally filed them.  Those bills only became meaningful once Burkett was outmanuvered in parliamentary procedure.

OK Incumbent being challenged by Liberal:

SD 17: Joan Huffman vs. Kristin Tassin

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it: Joan Huffman isn't perfect.  Her record, especially on the second amendment, leaves something to be desired.  But this race is still a no-brainer.

Kristin Tassin, Huffman's opponent, is a cog in the machine of the socialized education industrial complex.  As such, Tassin supports six figure salaries for government bureaucrats all in the name of "helping the children" [Note: We have a really fun piece of oppo waiting to drop on this one].  But don't dare call her an educrat.

Huffman, meanwhile, has put together a respectable record.  She certainly isn't perfect, but she's mostly conservative on most things most of the time.  As chair of the Senate State Affairs committee, she's also played a key role in advancing any number of conservative priorities.

And yes, Kristin Tassin, you are an educrat who supports six figure salaries for government bureaucrats in the name of "helping the children."

RINO incumbent being challenged by Conservative:

SD 30: Craig Estes vs. Pat Fallon

Often referred to as "Boss Hogg" in the district (behind his back, of course), we often thought of Craig Estes as the Jobba the Hut of the Texas Senate.  Long before the current wave of reports about chronic sexual abuse in the Texas Legislature, Craig Estes was the subject of press reports on this topic.  Estes has also been documented "living large" off of campaign contributions [Note: Isn't it amazing how frequently acts of financial corruption and acts of sexual c orruption are committed by the same people].

But Estes record on the issues isn't much better.  The 17 year incumbent consistently finds himself among the most liberal Republicans in the Texas senate.  Specifically, Estes supports big spending and he's soft on the border.  While Estes did support property tax reform this past session, that's a fairly new development and it's an open question whether a re-elected Estes would continue to do so.

Finally, as it relates to Estes, we have to mention a personal pet peeve: During this past legislative session, Estes took it upon himself to butt into an obscure land dispute in West Austin.  But, to make matters worse, he took the side of the local Austin NIMBY crowd over the side of property rights and the rule of law.  From this author's perspective, the MUNY golf course bill is the #1 reason Craig Estes is a priority.

Pat Fallon, by contrast, is a conservative workhorse.  He doesn't necessarily seek the spotlight, but Pat Fallon shows up when you need him.  As a textbook example: Pat Fallon voted for Scott Turner for speaker in 2015.

Pat Fallon also provided this website with some of the earliest video documentation of left wing protestors admitting they were in the country illegally during the mayhem of last session.

Finally, Pat Fallon played football at Notre Dame; we only bring this up because Texas beat Notre Dame the last time they played.

-------

Bottom Line: Priorities people....

#TXLEGE: The most interesting, creative, thing we've seen ANY Republican campaign do in a long time

"A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones."
Proverbs 17:22

One of this website's longstanding frustrations is the lack of creative thinking with which so many Republican campaigns operate.  We've recently made this point in relation to congressional races, but it's been a big problem for a long time.  But a Texas house challenger just found a VERY interesting way to summarize an incumbent's record.

Damon Rambo is running against Dennis Bonnen in HD-25.  Obviously, readers of this website know Dennis' record, but the average voter in Brazoria and Matagorda counties don't read this website.  Enter Damon Rambo's campaign.

"Simply not conservative" by "Dennis and the Establishments" is a cheekily irreverent investigation of the 20 year incumbent's record.  It plays off of Robert's Palmer's 1980's classic "simply irresistible."  Watch it for yourself:



The video examines Dennis' record on a number of issues and finds it "simply not conservative."  Dennis Bonnen killed property tax reform?!?  "Simply not conservative."  Dennis Bonnen has a weak pro-life record?!?  "Simply not conservative."  Dennis Bonnen has a weak record on the border?!?  "Simply not conservative."

That being said, the video is still rough around the edges.  It's too long (shouldn't run longer than two minutes) and the vocal track isn't loud enough, which makes it difficult to understand the lyrics.  But the concept is so good that these modest refinements would be icing on the cake.

Bottom Line: Dennis Bonnen..."simply not conservative!!!"

UT (once again) in deep legal doo-doo over Sexual matters in TWO lawsuits....

"He who covers his sins will not prosper,
But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy."
Proverbs 28:13

Great weekend for UT Athletics.

Not so much on the legal front.

On Friday, we saw the second Title IX lawsuit in six months:

An unnamed student accused of sexual assault is suing UT ahead of a Title IX hearing set for next week. The hearing will decide if he should be punished with a potential two-year suspension.

The student, referred to in the lawsuit as John Doe, is accused of assaulting a female student, referred to as Jane Roe, at a party that took place on April 28, 2017. Doe is being represented by Brian Roark. Roark represented another male student accused of sexual assault in a lawsuit against UT President Gregory Fenves that was settled last November.

The students in the current case were both drinking at the party and left together around 2 a.m. and had sex afterward at Roe’s apartment, according to the lawsuit. The following day, Roe told her friends she blacked out and did not remember anything until “moments just before she and John finished having sex.”

The lawsuit states Doe will not be treated justly in the Feb. 7 hearing because UT amended the Title IX case report three different times after receiving notice of an impending lawsuit. The report was allegedly amended by replacing the word “incapacitation” with “intoxication” in a sentence that originally said a witness observed that Roe was showing signs of incapacitation by acting less “socially inhibited” that she would normally.

Later pages of the report however were not amended to replace the “incapacitation” with “intoxication,” according to the lawsuit.

“If UT can’t get their story straight on what the definition of incapacitation is after months of contemplation and a recent Federal Court suit and public admonitions on the same topic from (a) Federal Judge, how in the world are a couple of hormone filled college students supposed to do it after a night of drinking?” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also said the University’s “bumbling” attempts to amend the use of incapacitation with intoxication in only one instance of the word’s use in the report show its desire to equate the two. If this is the case, and the standard for intoxication is simply “diminished social inhibitions,” then the hearing is “merely a facade for a predetermined conclusion,” according to the lawsuit.

This is awful.  If you don't have a credible system for dealing with this nonsense, you hurt actual survivors of sexual assault.  This enables predators.

But, if that wasn't enough, speaking of the athletic department:

A lawsuit filed by the former women’s track and field coach of the University of Texas could cause widespread embarrassment for current and former university officials.

Former coach Bev Kearney filed the lawsuit four years ago, claiming that the university had discriminated against her by firing her over a decade-old relationship with one of her athletes, while condoning an affair that football coach Major Applewhite had with a student trainer.

Then the case stalled on appeal, but the state Supreme Court ruled last year that Kearney’s discrimination lawsuit could proceed, and her attorneys have been vigorously pursuing potentially embarrassing depositions since then, as the Associated Press reported Monday.

Kearney’s legal claim fires warning shots all over the place, claiming that “other University employees (all of whom are white males) have been involved in relationships with students or direct subordinates and have not been subjected to termination, let alone any meaningful disciplinary actions. These University employees include Major Applewhite (current Co-Offensive Coordinator for the football team) (sic), other coaches within the University’s Athletic Department, current and former law school professors, current and former professors within the University’s undergraduate school, and a department chairperson.”

The reference to the former law school professor is likely an allusion to then-university President Bill Powers, who met his wife of more than three decades when she was a law student of his in the late ’70s, at a time he was married to another woman.

Applewhite has gained an even higher profile since the lawsuit was filed, as he was hired this offseason as the new head coach at the University of Houston. One of his first hires was an assistant coach tarnished by the sexual assault scandal at Baylor University.

Kearney’s court papers claim there are other coaches and officials who either have married former athletes or conducted affairs with employees they supervise. While university policy explicitly permits consensual relationships between an “employee with direct teaching, supervisory, advisory, or evaluative responsibility over other employees, students, and/or student employees,” Kearney claims she was “singled out” as “an African American female” and regarded as different based on a nearly 10 year old relationship.”

In the last two months, Kearney’s attorneys have filed records with the court regarding the depositions of former President Bill Powers, former football coach Mack Brown, and former athletic director DeLoss Dodds.

The university has persuaded the court to seal the depositions themselves for now, but even the brief deposition certification forms hint at more trouble, with Brown revising his interview to make clear that “no arrest or issues brought to me (sic).”

This could get interesting.  We've long suspected, just as a hunch based on their arrogance and entitlement, that there was a lot of this nonsense in the senior levels of the UT leadership.  In the current climate, this could get them in a lot of trouble.

But what's even more mind-blowing is that they're simultaneously being sued for discrimination both against, and in favor of, white men.  For these two cases to be occurring alongside each other is a textbook example of how making up arbitrary standards out of thin air always comes back to haunt you.  If UT had clear and consistent standards as it relates to these matters, neither of these lawsuits would be occurring.

Bottom Line: Yes, they really are this incompetent.

Longhorns Play Defense for Five Minutes...AND BEAT OU!!! #HookEm #Longhorns

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."
2 Timothy 4:7

Holy [REDACTED} what a finish!!!

This author attended this evening's UT basketball game against Oklahoma.  To be honest, for 35 minutes it looked like it was going to be the type of dumpster fire of a game that has become all too typical for this athletic department over the past five years.  We spent most of the game pondering how we could spin the loss we assumed was inevitable to make it as politically painful for Greg Fenves (who was at today's game) as possible.

Then the final five minutes happened.

For most of the game, OU led between 5 and 8 points.  The Longhorns would occasionally make a push, but OU consistently used superior effort on defense and higher percentage shot selection to maintain their lead.  Everything seemed to point towards yet another one of those type of Longhorn games that have become all too typical across the athletic department over the past five year.

But then, with five minutes to go, the team pulled their heads out of their backsides and played real defense.  It was the first time during the Shaka Smart era that the team's effort matched their talent.  We weren't taking notes, so we'll leave it to Burnt Orange Nation to explain the details:

Roach responded with a three-pointer before Texas cashed in with six straight free throws to tie the game at 66 with 5:39 remaining. After a Young three-pointer didn’t find its mark the ensuing possession, Coleman continued his offensive hot streak, giving Texas its first lead since 10-9 with 5:01 left to play.

After playing from behind throughout much of the evening, Texas was now the aggressor, utilizing high ball screens and isolations on Young for points at the rim and from the charity stripe down the stretch to assure the lead wasn’t relinquished.

Much of that had to do with Coleman.

After missing three potential game-winning free throws against Texas Tech, the Longhorns freshman guard nailed all four attempts in the final two minutes to push Texas’ lead to 76-70. Of course, seemingly no lead is safe with the sharpshooting Young on the other end, but after a prayer from three fell short, Texas got out in transition for an Eric Davis Jr. lob to Bamba to seal the win, capping a 20-4 Longhorns run.

Bottom Line: For the first time during the Shaka Smart era, the Longhorns had five minutes where their effort matched their talent.  The results speak for themselves.  Imagine what could happen if this sort of effort were delivered on a more consistent basis.

CD-21: Nobody Stands Out in Cliche Filled Candidate Forum

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
Colossians 1:16

Last we, we wrote a blog post discussing the lack of creativity or intellectual bandwidth in the various races for open congressional seats across Texas; unfortunately, last night's candidate forum for the CD-21 race sponsored by the Travis and Hays County Republican parties was a textbook example of what we're talking about.

The forum was loaded with boilerplate Republican rhetoric: "Founding Fathers," "Constitution," "Cut spending [without specifics]," "Reduce regulation [without specifics]," "Strong Christian," "Rebuild the Military," "Ronald Reagan," "Servant Leadership," "Drain the Swamp."  Everybody hit their talking points.  But we hope you'll forgive for saying that, after hearing them repeatedly over the past decade, those talking points have become rather stale.

Instead, the candidates seem to be differentiating themselves based on resume and endorsements.  If we're going to play the resume/endorsement game, Chip Roy will win.  The man spent a decade in D.C., yet managed to escape with his soul and his integrity intact.  As for the others, nobody stands out.

Honestly, the most interesting candidate in this race is the worst one.  Jen Sarver is a loathsome political hack (aka. Bush crony) who made a name for herself several years ago by the depths to which she was willing to stoop to carry water for the UT Politburo.  What makes her interesting in this race, however, is that she's running as an unapologetic RINO.  In a race where 15 candidates are attempting to cram into the "conservative" lane, Sarver has the "moderate" lane to herself.  In a divided field in a district that includes Joe Straus' San Antonio stomping grounds, that might be enough to make the runoff.  This website does not support Jen Sarver's candidacy in any way, shape, or form...but we are nevertheless VERY curious to see how she ends up doing.

In terms of policy, the only candidate who (kinda, sorta) stood out was Matt McCall.  Matt endorsed using Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution to remove abortion and marriage from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.  He also vaguely alluded to the need to abolish full cabinet departments.  On the other hand, Matt also supports placing immigration related sanctions on Mexico, a move that would be DOOMED to backfiring spectacularly.

We will also confess to a soft spot for Sam Temple, a longshot borderline-Anarchist who chided the other candidates for various stupid acts of fearmongring.

Bottom Line: Meh....