E
EaDo - Proof of case that Houston's hipsters carry around shoulder chips so deep you could solve the city's water woes by filling them.
East End - A much more sensible name for another place in Houston referred to by people when they talk about "where those people" live.
Education - Flimsy excuse, used by many, to justify pumping huge dollars to the teacher's union under the guise of "for the children".
Education Funding - For Texas' Lock Step Political Media: Did not exist prior to the 2009 Legislature.
Education System - The last refuge of the scoundrel.
It's not that educating children shouldn't be a priority, it's that educating children has become and excuse for asking that increasingly large sums of money be sent to a system that, by all accounts, is failing at it's number one job. For Texas Lock Step Political Media education funding didn't occur until the 2009 legislative session, and it wasn't brought into focus until a relatively weak economy forced the Texas Legislature to adjust the funding formula and decrease the amount of increase that school districts received. What has resulted from this change is one of the biggest tragi-comedies in recent Texas political history. The "cuts" as they've been classified, first started out at $4 Billion and have risen incrementally to either $5.4 or $5.3 Billion depending on the news source. It is now obvious that, for some reason, the 2009 funding levels have been arbitrarily established as a base-line among the TLSPM and progressive politicians with no explanation as to why.
Effort - The worst example of the "noun as a verb" phenomenon.
"Efforting" is something that bad politicians want you to know they're doing, when they're not "fighting for you" of course. In the Texas Legislature there are always a gaggle of politicians and staffers efforting to get something, anything, done so they can take it back to their constituents and parade around like peacocks during mating season. What's been lost in all of this is the fact that real, honest, effort is something you don't find any longer in either politics or political punditry.
Elections - Snapshots in time frequently mistaken as proof of case by those with political agendas.
Elephant - Something in a room that people refer to when they have little idea of the true minutia of any issue.
There's always going to be "an elephant in the room" for bloggers and reporters who want to pretend that they're smarter than the people who are discussing an issue but really aren't. In fact, most times, the elephant in the room isn't an elephant at all, but is something every one knows about and has been discussed, at length, long ago.
Ellington Field - Site of the Houston AirShow once per year and..........?
Emmitt, Ed - The Harris County Judge and a Republican that even Democrats can like, at times, when they're not trying to run a campaign against him. Also: Perennial easy out for the Houston Press as their "Best Republican".
Energy - That which makes a city move. Chronically lacking in Houston at every level.
There are a lot of things that make up a city's energy, from actual energy (of which Houston is a leader) which runs the lights and keeps cities in the South livable in the Summer, to creative energy which drives projects, to a baseline level of popular energy which gives a city it's vibe. Houston is a city with an energy industry and nothing else. Creative energy is wasted on silly inner-loop projects while a majority of people move outside the Loop taking their energy to the suburbs. It could be argued that Houston's energy surplus lies in the anger Inner Loopers feel toward everyone else. If they could somehow channel that energy into something productive instead of false-gotcha snarkiness in web comments Houston might not be still trying to figure out what to do with the Astrodome.
Energy Reporting - In Houston, an endangered species.
Enron - The cudgel used by Houston's lack-luster energy reporters to beat current companies over the head for things they're probably not even doing.
Equality - Loved by all in abstract. Hated when it's realized what it entails.
Equal Pay - Misunderstood concept that is meaningless in serious debate.
Equal Rights - Often mistaken to mean equality of outcome.
The modern concept of "equal" (and all of its offshoots) is really more of a political campaign tool than an actual search for equality in and of itself. Today's equality mongers are really looking for similar outcomes instead of similar opportunity. They ignore that two people given truly equal opportunities to succeed are going to produce totally disparate results. If you're lazy and have all of the chances in the world you're still going to end up lazy and lagging behind those who are willing to put their nose down and get the work done. Therefore equality is nothing more than a campaign tool for stupid people who bring nothing of substance to the table. You can tell how much trouble a State is truly in by counting how many of these equality-mongers actually get elected to office.
Eversole, Jerry - The goodest of gold ol' boys in the Harris County good ol' boy network.
EZ Tag - What your car might consider to be the number of the beast.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Monday, April 1, 2013
Awwww Houston, if only you weren't as big.
Houston's been on a lot of lists lately, most of them pretty good. Whether it's the coolest city in America or tops for jobs or income growth or paycheck size, our fair city matches up well with other places with lesser economies and equally poor local elected officials. So well, in fact, that it seems the local media is struggling to find something bad to write about.
Sure, there's always going to be our refusal to accept a bad public transportation plan, or to not relegate ourselves to walking and biking in 100 degree weather, those things are always there. But they ring a little hollow when the people advocating them are either wild-eyed with teh crazy or wearing a fedora and vacationing in the South of France. The Apple Dumpling Gang? Pshaw. More people use them for bird-cage lining and fireplace kindle than actually take advice on local politics. Yawn.
It is with a nod to April Fools' Day then that the Chron has hidden behind their paywall a take down of Houston for no other reason than we're just too damn big. ($$$) Based on population size I'm not surprised that Houston is leading the pack in the raw number of smoking cars. Given our propensity for driving like a hyper-self absorbed Lindsey Lohan that shouldn't be much of a shock either. The fact is, there are a LOT of us here (barely) sharing the roads, and a few of us are trying to stretch that automobile out as far as it will go, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes out of stubbornness. Cars in Houston are a necessity, like it or not, and they will be for years to come.
So, as you start your week today with news of Bacon Scope and reports that the Astros won on opening night. (Surprisingly, not an April Fools' story) remember this: There are some things that are really worth worrying about, and then there are things dredged up by the local equivalent of the London Sun. It's best to just chalk the latter up to bad media and go about enjoying your day.
Sure, there's always going to be our refusal to accept a bad public transportation plan, or to not relegate ourselves to walking and biking in 100 degree weather, those things are always there. But they ring a little hollow when the people advocating them are either wild-eyed with teh crazy or wearing a fedora and vacationing in the South of France. The Apple Dumpling Gang? Pshaw. More people use them for bird-cage lining and fireplace kindle than actually take advice on local politics. Yawn.
It is with a nod to April Fools' Day then that the Chron has hidden behind their paywall a take down of Houston for no other reason than we're just too damn big. ($$$) Based on population size I'm not surprised that Houston is leading the pack in the raw number of smoking cars. Given our propensity for driving like a hyper-self absorbed Lindsey Lohan that shouldn't be much of a shock either. The fact is, there are a LOT of us here (barely) sharing the roads, and a few of us are trying to stretch that automobile out as far as it will go, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes out of stubbornness. Cars in Houston are a necessity, like it or not, and they will be for years to come.
So, as you start your week today with news of Bacon Scope and reports that the Astros won on opening night. (Surprisingly, not an April Fools' story) remember this: There are some things that are really worth worrying about, and then there are things dredged up by the local equivalent of the London Sun. It's best to just chalk the latter up to bad media and go about enjoying your day.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
"Evolving" on the gay marriage issue.
It's become habit to come on this blog and ridicule Texas Lock Step Political Media for following one meme or another down the rabbit hole in the name of forwarding the dominant message of the time. Many look at this and choose to dismiss it at "cries of liberal bias" but that's not really the point I'm making.
Well, OK, at certain times it's the point I'm making but not always. The real problem with the TLSPM is that they don't often think outside the box on certain issues. Almost all of them choose to view something from a certain perspective and anything that forwards the narrative is promoted to the exclusion of every other point of view. This is why several members of the TLSPM chose to run incredulous accounts that Gov. Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz were in opposition to same-sex marriage despite the fact that an Internet poll had revealed that most Texans were now "for" it.
Never mentioned was the fact that public opinion shouldn't matter to the SCOTUS, and there was no mention made of possible Democratic justification for their beliefs. As a matter of fact, support or opposition of gay marriage has been divided down the lines of a principled belief in civil rights, or outright bigotry and hatred. Is this a false dichotomy? Of course, but it is the narrative that the TLSPM has chosen to forward despite evidence to the contrary.
Until now.
Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dunham but he got this one right. And when a reporter does get it right it should be pointed out. The fact is that, as the polling has changed, many politicians stances toward gay marriage have changed. The biggest examples of this are President Barack Obama and prospective Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Once the polling revealed a political advantage for support, the accolades were sure to start flowing in.
Ironically, many who have long-been supporters of gay marriage (on both the left and the right) are kind of being overlooked due to the headline (and page-view) nature of these "evolution" stories. At this point it's also appropriate to discuss whether "evolution" is the right term to use. In it's current use it signifies a significant step forward, moving up the evolutionary ladder if you will, but what we're seeing here is not an advancement forward in the name of freedom, but a realization that one's career could be toast without support based on the current political winds.
I've no doubt that the fervent, pro- or anti-gay marriage activists have come about their convictions honestly. I've long stated on this (and other blogs, forms of social media etc.) that I believe marriage to be a two-tiered contract with one tier being acknowledged by the State and the second being acknowledged by the Church. You receive a marriage license from the State which becomes your marriage contract. In many cases the Clergy signs that document which means that the Church has recognized the State contract as valid. Because of this I can find no Constitutional justification for denying same-sex couples to be 'married' in the eyes of the State. If you choose to categorize this as "support" for gay marriage then so be it.
But the Church also has the right of refusal, just as they have the right of refusal for divorce. This is why the authority to enter two individuals into a marriage union also lies with others outside of the customary institutions, Justices of the Peace, ship captains etc. The worry, for me, is that, due to the framing of the anti-portion of the issue as 'hatre-based', attempts are made to remove the Church's right of refusal that has historically been in place. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune lays out this argument more eloquently than I ever could and displays a perspective of the situation not found in Texas media, often presented by lesser journalists than he.
The problem here is that, even today, the TLSPM and the media control and set the narrative, and all to often it's the one that's in line with their personal political views rather than the narrative that actually is. Because of this we are allowed only to see supporters of gay marriage as principled culture warriors with right and might on their side instead of the political opportunists that many are. Conversely, we don't see any principle from anti-gay marriage activists despite the fact that their continued stance against is probably more based on principle than the other side.
Whether or not you're a pro- or anti- reporting of this type should discourage you. Eventually you're going to be on the wrong side of an issue and it could be you whose cast as the hate-filled Luddite with anti-social behavior. For now, however, the TLSPM river is only flowing one way.
Well, OK, at certain times it's the point I'm making but not always. The real problem with the TLSPM is that they don't often think outside the box on certain issues. Almost all of them choose to view something from a certain perspective and anything that forwards the narrative is promoted to the exclusion of every other point of view. This is why several members of the TLSPM chose to run incredulous accounts that Gov. Perry and Sen. Ted Cruz were in opposition to same-sex marriage despite the fact that an Internet poll had revealed that most Texans were now "for" it.
Never mentioned was the fact that public opinion shouldn't matter to the SCOTUS, and there was no mention made of possible Democratic justification for their beliefs. As a matter of fact, support or opposition of gay marriage has been divided down the lines of a principled belief in civil rights, or outright bigotry and hatred. Is this a false dichotomy? Of course, but it is the narrative that the TLSPM has chosen to forward despite evidence to the contrary.
Until now.
Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dunham but he got this one right. And when a reporter does get it right it should be pointed out. The fact is that, as the polling has changed, many politicians stances toward gay marriage have changed. The biggest examples of this are President Barack Obama and prospective Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Once the polling revealed a political advantage for support, the accolades were sure to start flowing in.
Ironically, many who have long-been supporters of gay marriage (on both the left and the right) are kind of being overlooked due to the headline (and page-view) nature of these "evolution" stories. At this point it's also appropriate to discuss whether "evolution" is the right term to use. In it's current use it signifies a significant step forward, moving up the evolutionary ladder if you will, but what we're seeing here is not an advancement forward in the name of freedom, but a realization that one's career could be toast without support based on the current political winds.
I've no doubt that the fervent, pro- or anti-gay marriage activists have come about their convictions honestly. I've long stated on this (and other blogs, forms of social media etc.) that I believe marriage to be a two-tiered contract with one tier being acknowledged by the State and the second being acknowledged by the Church. You receive a marriage license from the State which becomes your marriage contract. In many cases the Clergy signs that document which means that the Church has recognized the State contract as valid. Because of this I can find no Constitutional justification for denying same-sex couples to be 'married' in the eyes of the State. If you choose to categorize this as "support" for gay marriage then so be it.
But the Church also has the right of refusal, just as they have the right of refusal for divorce. This is why the authority to enter two individuals into a marriage union also lies with others outside of the customary institutions, Justices of the Peace, ship captains etc. The worry, for me, is that, due to the framing of the anti-portion of the issue as 'hatre-based', attempts are made to remove the Church's right of refusal that has historically been in place. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune lays out this argument more eloquently than I ever could and displays a perspective of the situation not found in Texas media, often presented by lesser journalists than he.
The problem here is that, even today, the TLSPM and the media control and set the narrative, and all to often it's the one that's in line with their personal political views rather than the narrative that actually is. Because of this we are allowed only to see supporters of gay marriage as principled culture warriors with right and might on their side instead of the political opportunists that many are. Conversely, we don't see any principle from anti-gay marriage activists despite the fact that their continued stance against is probably more based on principle than the other side.
Whether or not you're a pro- or anti- reporting of this type should discourage you. Eventually you're going to be on the wrong side of an issue and it could be you whose cast as the hate-filled Luddite with anti-social behavior. For now, however, the TLSPM river is only flowing one way.
Southwest putting an end to that low-fare mojo.
When Southwest Airlines launched their PR offensive to get approval to fly their blue and reddish-orange planes to Mexico and other points South from Hobby Airport there was much gushing and praise for the plucky little airline and their ability to move into a market and lower prices. Such was the myth of the 'Southwest effect' thrown into the argument despite the warnings of local travel experts (and people who actually have an understanding about how airlines function).
Fast forward to today and it's becoming more and more evident that those warning against Southwest acting as a lower-fare genie are being proven out. Yesterday in the media the following two stories ran suggesting that Southwest is now beginning to position themselves as a more serious airline without the quirkiness and "low fare" fanfare that accompanied all of their previous ads.
Southwest Airlines: We're not about cheap fares any more. Brad Tuttle, TIME
Fast forward to today and it's becoming more and more evident that those warning against Southwest acting as a lower-fare genie are being proven out. Yesterday in the media the following two stories ran suggesting that Southwest is now beginning to position themselves as a more serious airline without the quirkiness and "low fare" fanfare that accompanied all of their previous ads.
Southwest Airlines: We're not about cheap fares any more. Brad Tuttle, TIME
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Note to Houston newsies: Look inward for your fix.
You can't write about this: Between Oscars and Yahoo! a bad week for women, Kyrie O'Connor, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
and then expect us to take you seriously when the "features" department you oversaw (and built) from 2003 - 2012 produces this on a regular basis:
Additionally...
You can't write about this: 5 reasons we must keep BangWithFriends.com alive. Casey Michel, Houston Press
and then expect us to take seriously your writings with (intentionally?) inflammatory headlines like this:
HISD to offer free dinners to anyone under 18, whether illegal or not. Casey Michel, Houston Press
And therein lies the problem with Houston's present day media.
The Press, is a mess. I'd argue that they're no longer a news gathering organization and are just a loose collection of freelance bloggers publishing anything they can find in the name of page hits. Occasionally they might turn out something worthwhile, but very rarely. Then, when they do, you look back at all of the stuff the author's written and you say "bah, they don't know what they're talking about anyway."
Both the Chron and the Press lose all credibility on women's issues because of (shocker!) how they portray women.
While figuring the Press was fairly straight forward, the Chron is slightly more nuanced. It took me a while to figure out exactly where they were trying to go.
At first, I thought they were trying to be a low-rent London Times. Of course, without the good news content and meaningful analysis. First, they put some stuff behind a paywall, like the Times, and then, they made the pay site rather bland (again, like the Times), what was missing behind the Chron's paywall was meaningful content, whereas the Times has put pretty much everything behind the shield. In contrast, the Chron has hidden AP wire reports, a few public interest stories, two c-list local political columnists, The Apple Dumpling Gang and Lisa Falkenberg from public view. For this we should thank them.
It was only recently that I figured out what they were really going for, ChronBlog wants desperately to become The Daily Mail.
More breathy than newsy, the Daily Mail is the perfect mixture of supermarket tabloid magazine and splashy, sensationalist newsy reporting more designed to tug at the heart strings than present the facts in any case. In many ways the Chron is trolling right down that same path choosing to frame stories designed to enrage (and bring on page views) rather than inform. Oh, and then there's the whole We're all gonna DIE!!!! hysteria that's been coming from the Apple Dumpling Gang of late. They wave the flag and cheer about one Billion page hits and 50 thousand twitter followers while ignoring Billions of dollars in local, public entity spending and thousands of stories that should be told.
The people want news, the Chron gives them Requiem for a make-out bar. The problem is that this story bemoaning the demise of Houston's former Pantheon of public sex will be followed up with an eventual tut-tutting about where Texas ranks on some listing of children born out of wed-lock. I'm not suggesting that Marfreless added to the population, but I am suggesting that glorifying casual sex does. It's OK to write a story about a local institution closing, but an entire editorial, which glorifies the bar's "sleazy secret?" Forgive us if we don't get all worked up the next time you decide to lecture us on how we're failing as a society.
The problem is that we still need news, there still needs to be an outlet to provide news and as a society we still haven't figured out what's going to come after. What's the next big thing? Even the Texas Legislature is trying to figure that out as they debate where polling locations should be published now that no one is looking for them in the dead-tree editions of their former newspapers of record. It's a real problem. A problem whose only answer, to date, seems to be to rely on Newsish non-profits and the websites of the newspapers that let us down in the first place. Either that, or TV news, which is worse for numerous reasons.
Nope, the answer is for today's media organizations to understand what's wrong internally, either that or just give it up and leave the news game altogether. This middle ground approach is failing miserably.
and then expect us to take you seriously when the "features" department you oversaw (and built) from 2003 - 2012 produces this on a regular basis:
You can't write about this: 5 reasons we must keep BangWithFriends.com alive. Casey Michel, Houston Press
and then expect us to take seriously your writings with (intentionally?) inflammatory headlines like this:
HISD to offer free dinners to anyone under 18, whether illegal or not. Casey Michel, Houston Press
And therein lies the problem with Houston's present day media.
The Press, is a mess. I'd argue that they're no longer a news gathering organization and are just a loose collection of freelance bloggers publishing anything they can find in the name of page hits. Occasionally they might turn out something worthwhile, but very rarely. Then, when they do, you look back at all of the stuff the author's written and you say "bah, they don't know what they're talking about anyway."
Both the Chron and the Press lose all credibility on women's issues because of (shocker!) how they portray women.
While figuring the Press was fairly straight forward, the Chron is slightly more nuanced. It took me a while to figure out exactly where they were trying to go.
At first, I thought they were trying to be a low-rent London Times. Of course, without the good news content and meaningful analysis. First, they put some stuff behind a paywall, like the Times, and then, they made the pay site rather bland (again, like the Times), what was missing behind the Chron's paywall was meaningful content, whereas the Times has put pretty much everything behind the shield. In contrast, the Chron has hidden AP wire reports, a few public interest stories, two c-list local political columnists, The Apple Dumpling Gang and Lisa Falkenberg from public view. For this we should thank them.
It was only recently that I figured out what they were really going for, ChronBlog wants desperately to become The Daily Mail.
More breathy than newsy, the Daily Mail is the perfect mixture of supermarket tabloid magazine and splashy, sensationalist newsy reporting more designed to tug at the heart strings than present the facts in any case. In many ways the Chron is trolling right down that same path choosing to frame stories designed to enrage (and bring on page views) rather than inform. Oh, and then there's the whole We're all gonna DIE!!!! hysteria that's been coming from the Apple Dumpling Gang of late. They wave the flag and cheer about one Billion page hits and 50 thousand twitter followers while ignoring Billions of dollars in local, public entity spending and thousands of stories that should be told.
The people want news, the Chron gives them Requiem for a make-out bar. The problem is that this story bemoaning the demise of Houston's former Pantheon of public sex will be followed up with an eventual tut-tutting about where Texas ranks on some listing of children born out of wed-lock. I'm not suggesting that Marfreless added to the population, but I am suggesting that glorifying casual sex does. It's OK to write a story about a local institution closing, but an entire editorial, which glorifies the bar's "sleazy secret?" Forgive us if we don't get all worked up the next time you decide to lecture us on how we're failing as a society.
The problem is that we still need news, there still needs to be an outlet to provide news and as a society we still haven't figured out what's going to come after. What's the next big thing? Even the Texas Legislature is trying to figure that out as they debate where polling locations should be published now that no one is looking for them in the dead-tree editions of their former newspapers of record. It's a real problem. A problem whose only answer, to date, seems to be to rely on Newsish non-profits and the websites of the newspapers that let us down in the first place. Either that, or TV news, which is worse for numerous reasons.
Nope, the answer is for today's media organizations to understand what's wrong internally, either that or just give it up and leave the news game altogether. This middle ground approach is failing miserably.
Monday, March 25, 2013
The Metro service you want vs. what Metro says you need.
Like a few of you, those few who still subscribe to the dead-tree edition of ChronBlog and actually read it instead of just grabbing the coupons and using the rest for grilling kindle, I was surprised Sunday morning to read the Outlook piece by Metro board member Christof Spieler regarding their plans to receive public input on 'making bus service better'.
The link:
Metro works to make bus service easier to use. Christof Spieler, Chron.com
This could be viewed, with reservations, as good news. For one, it's long been the position of this blog that Metro's antiquated hub and spoke system doesn't serve the transit needs of a city with multiple employment and entertainment centers and, given that Metro has spent an incredibly large amount of money chasing the white whale of central core developing rail, Metro hasn't been putting much thought into what should be the meat of their public transit plan. In fact, Spieler mentions these exact things in his piece, talking about the need to have bus service that matches the City's needs etc.
On the surface then it's all well and good, the people are going to explain why buses can't take them anywhere in Houston without first going downtown and being force-loaded onto the Danger Train, Metro is going to sagely smile and nod and changes for the good of all are soon to come and we can all ride around town on beautiful buses adorned with T-Mobile adverts. Only Bob Eury will be angry.
Underneath the happy-talk there's an undercurrent of heels-dug-in predetermination that starts to emerge when Spieler speaks of "goals" and "missions". It becomes clear that the blank slate he was talking about in the beginning is not as blank as one might imagine. First, there are certainly sacred cows, bus routes in places that serve political, as well as mobility, goals. Second there is still the Danger Train, and the beast has to be fed. Then there's the, now required, fealty expressed to the central business district and Medical Center, areas which Metro's "stakeholders" (Read: developers) have long-held financial positions in which they've heavily invested and are not ready to relinquish.
Then there's the problem with Metro itself. For all of the talk about "New" Metro vs. "Old" Metro the differences are basically only seen on the public relations side. They have done a better job controlling their message and projecting the appearance of transparency. When it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of transportation operations however they're pretty much the same. The same "side" of the transportation debate, the minority who supports Metro's stated mission of driving development inside the Loop, are the one's whose input is greeted with an open ear while others are shut out, cast as Luddites in a Siemens-constructed new-technology world.
It would seem as if the residents of the Houston region would welcome a totally re-designed bus network that got them where they needed to go quickly and efficiently. The problem with Metro (either new or old) is that they seem to have a pre-determined preference on these matters regarding what the public should want that's given preference despite what's actually communicated.
If history is any indication then they'll do a good job disseminating the preferred plan to certain activist groups, the Apple Dumpling Gang and other fellow travelers. If you start to see a symmetry in the "wants" between all of these groups then you know that the "Old" Metro style fix is in. Of course, the way to prevent that would be to hire a third party firm to conduct many of the surveys Metro is touting, and to have them release the full data for all to see, including cross tabs. Given the history of Metro and its public interaction it's doubtful this option has ever been seriously discussed. I believe what we're going to be told we want is exactly what Metro has decided we need.
The link:
Metro works to make bus service easier to use. Christof Spieler, Chron.com
This could be viewed, with reservations, as good news. For one, it's long been the position of this blog that Metro's antiquated hub and spoke system doesn't serve the transit needs of a city with multiple employment and entertainment centers and, given that Metro has spent an incredibly large amount of money chasing the white whale of central core developing rail, Metro hasn't been putting much thought into what should be the meat of their public transit plan. In fact, Spieler mentions these exact things in his piece, talking about the need to have bus service that matches the City's needs etc.
On the surface then it's all well and good, the people are going to explain why buses can't take them anywhere in Houston without first going downtown and being force-loaded onto the Danger Train, Metro is going to sagely smile and nod and changes for the good of all are soon to come and we can all ride around town on beautiful buses adorned with T-Mobile adverts. Only Bob Eury will be angry.
Underneath the happy-talk there's an undercurrent of heels-dug-in predetermination that starts to emerge when Spieler speaks of "goals" and "missions". It becomes clear that the blank slate he was talking about in the beginning is not as blank as one might imagine. First, there are certainly sacred cows, bus routes in places that serve political, as well as mobility, goals. Second there is still the Danger Train, and the beast has to be fed. Then there's the, now required, fealty expressed to the central business district and Medical Center, areas which Metro's "stakeholders" (Read: developers) have long-held financial positions in which they've heavily invested and are not ready to relinquish.
Then there's the problem with Metro itself. For all of the talk about "New" Metro vs. "Old" Metro the differences are basically only seen on the public relations side. They have done a better job controlling their message and projecting the appearance of transparency. When it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of transportation operations however they're pretty much the same. The same "side" of the transportation debate, the minority who supports Metro's stated mission of driving development inside the Loop, are the one's whose input is greeted with an open ear while others are shut out, cast as Luddites in a Siemens-constructed new-technology world.
It would seem as if the residents of the Houston region would welcome a totally re-designed bus network that got them where they needed to go quickly and efficiently. The problem with Metro (either new or old) is that they seem to have a pre-determined preference on these matters regarding what the public should want that's given preference despite what's actually communicated.
If history is any indication then they'll do a good job disseminating the preferred plan to certain activist groups, the Apple Dumpling Gang and other fellow travelers. If you start to see a symmetry in the "wants" between all of these groups then you know that the "Old" Metro style fix is in. Of course, the way to prevent that would be to hire a third party firm to conduct many of the surveys Metro is touting, and to have them release the full data for all to see, including cross tabs. Given the history of Metro and its public interaction it's doubtful this option has ever been seriously discussed. I believe what we're going to be told we want is exactly what Metro has decided we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)