Debunking the Myths about Proposition 1

If you live in Houston, you’ve probably heard about Proposition 1 – a piece of Municipal legislation on the November 8 ballot that would create a dedicated fund for the repair of Houston’s infrastructure. I moved here in 1998, and I’ve yet to see a more desperately needed piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, a groundswell of opposition has formed to Proposition 1, and they’re hard at work spreading misinformation about it. As a supporter, I feel it is my duty to correct them.

Myth # 1: Proposition 1 is just about drainage. Actually, Proposition 1 is about ALL infrastructure under the City’s control. That includes storm sewers, and ROADS. Our City is riddled with pot holes that do severe damage to vehicles.

I’ll pause and let the first myth sink in, because it really is the most important – and the one everyone overlooks (including four members of City Council). Whenever you drive over a pot hole or have to replace the shocks in your car, think about Proposition 1 and how nice it’d be if we could FIX HOUSTON’S ROADS.

Myth # 2: Proposition 1 is a tax. In fact, Proposition 1 is an assessment on impervious cover. You might own ten acres on the outskirts of Houston, but you’ll only pay for the part that’s paved over. The reason for this is that impervious cover contributes to flooding, and also requires curb-cuts for road access to your property.

Myth # 3: We already pay a tax for the Harris County Flood Control District; we shouldn’t have to pay an assessment for the same thing. Harris County Flood Control handles big, regional stormwater detention and drainage facilities. But those big facilities are fed by a network of smaller, City owned storm sewers, open ditches and culverts. The City does an abysmal job at maintaining these facilities – and usually their excuse is that they don’t have the money. Proposition 1 would take away that excuse.

Myth # 4: Proposition 1 will place undue burden on the poor. The fees are estimated at only $5 per month for an average house. Most of us spend more on coffee in a week. For commercial properties, it’s $92 per acre of impervious cover per month – less than the cost of printing up flyers for advertisement. Bear in mind that most small businesses are on far less than an acre of land.

Myth #5: The Mayor is behind Proposition 1. Actually Proposition 1 was spearheaded by City Councilman Stephen Costello and a non-profit group called Renew Houston. Our Mayor supports Proposition 1, but it wasn’t her idea.

Myth #6: Renew Houston is just a bunch of engineers who want money. It's true that Renew Houston was formed by engineers, but that's because engineers can see the full extent of the problem. Engineers understand the flood control and transportation needs of our City.

I don’t work for Renew Houston or Stephen Costello’s office. I am not being paid at all for writing this. I actually wish Proposition 1 weren’t necessary. But we can’t rely on the general fund to pay for road and drainage repairs. It's too easy for City Hall to raid the general fund for other things. We need a special fund that they can only use for roads and drainage, and that's exactly what Proposition 1 will provide.

The Condo Complex Loophole: What it is, and why it needs to be closed.

People don’t realize it, but some of the worst “apartments” in Houston are actually condominiums. The infamous Candlelight Trails complex was condominiums; and there are countless others across the City.

If you’re familiar with how the City enforces its codes, this should come as no surprise. An apartment complex is a single property. If the property has code violations or other problems, there’s only one owner to go after. And go after them Houston has. They've used a combination of sticks and carrots to change apartment complexes. They've got a long way to go, but the improvements are starting to be seen.

In a condo complex, each unit is a separate property, and may have a separate owner. If there are problems, each of those owners has to be contacted. They all must agree on any repairs to be made. And if the complex needs to be condemned - as was the case at the Candlelight Trails - the City needs to sue each of the owners individually. It’s much more time consuming for the City, and expensive for the taxpayer.

I call it the Condo Complex Loophole, and slum lords use it to their advantage. They buy a controlling portion of a condo complex, and then rent them out to unsuspecting tenants. It’s a devilish way of avoiding City enforcement, and it can really hurt innocent owners. At the Candlelight Trails, a widowed mother of three was hit with $200,000 in legal fees - because of a Dallas based slum lord who took advantage of the Condo Complex Loophole.

Hopefully the City will do something to close the Condo Complex Loophole. It's hard to tell what they can do - they can't outlaw condominiums or sue owners without contacting them. But the Condo Complex Loophole protects slum lords. It’s unfair to neighbors, it’s unfair to tenants, and it’s unfair to honest owners.

Zoning, and the Houston Preservation Ordinance

Chronicle blogger Tori Gattis had an excellent article today – about zoning, and the proposed revisions to Houston’s preservation ordinance. I had originally written this as a response to his blog, but it took on a life of its own.

Whenever there's a fight over development, someone always chimes in with "if we had zoning, this wouldn’t happen.” They’re wrong, but it’s easy to see why they pine for zoning. Houston has relatively few controls on building. Developers can pretty much build whatever they want, wherever they want, with no consideration of their surroundings or the future. Neighbors who don't like it, are told to leave. It contributes to urban sprawl, it creates urban blight, it's the opposite of green, and it leads to land-use battles that frustrate both developers and neighborhoods.

When you're talking about zoning, you're not really talking about the rights of the community versus the rights of an individual. You're talking about the power of Government over the rights of both the individual and the community. A handful of planners writes a zoning ordinance, and everyone else has to live by it. Neighborhoods (communities) don't really get to decide what's right for them, any more than individuals are allowed freedom over their own property.

As an architect and a Super Neighborhood President, I’ve suggested an alternative legal approach to zoning that would affect high-rises, large residential developments, and hazardous occupancy buildings. But what we really need is cooperation on all types of development. Developers can cooperate by using common sense, studying their surroundings, thinking long term, and talking to neighborhood groups. Neighborhood groups can cooperate with their own planning, and working out their own needs and concerns. They can communicate these concerns in a consistent way - instead of blindsiding developers with last minute protests. This would really be a community based way of developing - zoning would only get in the way of it.

Where does Historic Preservation fall into it? In an ideal world we wouldn’t need an ordinance to enforce . Again, cooperation could take the place of an ordinance. When a historically significant property goes on the market, preservationists could research the property and give that research to the realtor. The realtors could use that research to get buyers who are interested in preserving the property. The City’s preservation ordinance I think respects this – at least, it wouldn’t get in the way of it.

Learning from our Mistakes - the Fifth Anniversary of "The Big Heart"

Whenever we hear about mistakes and Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans take the spotlight. Poorly built levies that failed. Buses that could have been used to evacuate, but weren’t. ‘Refuges of last resort’ that were never equipped to serve as such. Hospitals that were left to fend for themselves.

Houston comes through in a positive light. We got the nickname “The Big Heart,” for our compassion after the storm. It’s true that we Houstonians opened our arms to New Orleanians when other cities wouldn’t. But there were some very serious mistakes here, too:

- There was a lack of long-term services for evacuees. They got counseling at the Astrodome – along with other services . But they were soon rushed to far-flung apartments, and the services went elsewhere. It would have been better if the evacuees had gotten help like job placement and grief counseling on-site in the apartments.

- There was inadequate policing to handle the evacuees in the long term. HPD should have hired officers from New Orleans to come and join the force. Those officers could have given valuable insight into the gangs and crime patterns that were prevalent in New Orleans before the storm; not to mention adding to HPD’s manpower. To their credit, HPD wanted more officers after the storm; but they didn’t have the money to do it.

- Housing was poorly administered. The goal was to put as many people into apartments as quickly as possible, and for the most part that goal was met. But in the rush, important things were missed:

o There were no guidelines for habitability, safety, or security in apartments that welcomed evacuees. Evacuees moved into some pretty squalid complexes.

o They didn’t screen evacuees. It was too easy for criminals to move in and wreak havoc. Some apartments faced mounting crime, and it was (sometimes rightly) blamed on the evacuees.

o FEMA checks didn’t always come on time. The program kept changing. It led to uncertainty on the part of landlords and evacuee tenants – and fueled tensions.

These mistakes were amplified by the scale of what happened. 250,000 people came to our City over a matter of days. Our City grew by 10% within a week. Neighborhoods changed – many for the worse. People talk about the mistakes in New Orleans after Katrina. But we should also learn from the mistakes that were made here in Houston.

Thoughts on WalMart: Developers need to do a better job of listening to neighborhood groups.

I didn’t make it to the hearing on The Washington Heights WalMart yesterday evening, but I wish I had. As a Super Neighborhood President, and an Architect I can’t resist weighing in on a land use battle.

There are positives to the Washington Heights WalMart development. They’ve found a big piece of land in an up and coming neighborhood. The site is an abandoned factory (what we call a “brownfield”); it is the kind of property that neighborhoods beg to redevelop. And at some level, you have to wonder how much of the opposition is to WalMart in general. There will be 30 other stores in the development. Nobody’s protesting them.

But there is a major drawback to the Washington Heights WalMart: site access. The property is bounded on one side by train tracks. On the other three sides it has minor, two lane roads. I-10 is nearby, but there is currently no easy access from the highway to the site. Rumor has it that TXDOT will build a new exit from I-10 that will fix it, but until they do, It’s going to be a nightmare for drivers to reach this property.

Neighbors have rightly pointed out these concerns (along with the resultant traffic, crime and noise) - and the developers would be wise to listen. In general, developers need to do a better job of listening to neighborhood groups. They need to do it before they close on a piece of land – just like they would consult a zoning ordinance in most other cities. They could avoid land use battles like the one over the Washington Heights WalMart; and get fresh insight into their plans. In the end the developments would be better, and Houston’s neighborhoods would be better, too.