Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 37

Integrity and Justice
Integrity is the virtue of acting according to one's beliefs and values. While one's stated beliefs and convictions are certainly important, one's actions do speak louder than words. One's actions demonstrate the strength and depth of those convictions.

So it is interesting that two mayoral candidates agreed to appear at a forum last week, but didn't show up. (HT: Pondering Penguin via blogHouston) Nor did they call or send flowers. Both Gene Locke-step and Peter Brown-nose failed to honor their commitment. As the Pondering Penguin put it:

If voters can not count on a candidate to show up for a forum as previously agreed to, what does that say? It says that candidate is not true to his word and not to be trusted. It says they do not surround themselves with professional acting staffers. It says we are not important, that they believe they will win an election without the ordinary voter. It is incredibly arrogant and unprofessional.

At this point in time, the candidates are interviewing for a job. If they can't be on their best behavior now--before they have the job--what will they do once elected? If they can't honor a simple commitment to appear at a forum, why should we believe that they will honor their campaign promises? The fact is, we should have no such expectation.

Justice is the virtue of judging men by rational principles. A man who cannot honor his commitments is not worthy of holding the office of Mayor of Houston. That is my judgment.

When Modern "Art" Meets Freedom
The Contemporary Arts Museum (no link is provided as a matter of principle) has been hosting an exhibit titled No Zoning: Artists Engage Houston. The CAM web site tells us:

Participants contributing new projects include The Art Guys (Michael Galbreth and Jack Massing), who will present a performance that involves marrying a tree...

Since art is a selective recreation of reality according to one's metaphysical value-judgments, what does this "project" tell us about the "artists"? A lot. But since I try to limit my profanity in this blog, I will also have to limit my comments.

The Guys (I won't use their middle name, because it isn't appropriate) are making a mockery of one of life's most joyous institutions--marriage. Romantic love--which marriage should be based upon--is not an experience driven by emotion, but an expression of one's highest rational values. To mock marriage is to mock values as such.

And consider the context in which this mockery occurs--an exhibit supposedly "celebrating" Houston's relative freedom in land-use. To the trash putting on this exhibit, freedom means doing anything one "feels like", including marrying a freaking tree. That gives an entirely new meaning to "tree hugger".

Straddling the Fence
A recent mayoral debate focused on the city's mobility. The Chronicle's article on the debate makes an interesting comment in regard to Metro's rail plans:

The incoming mayor will have to make sure construction does not disrupt neighborhoods too much and help the agency decide what to do next.

The leading candidates--Brown, Parker, and Locke--all favor light rail. They also favor "protecting" neighborhoods by imposing restrictions on development, such as the Ashby High Rise. The Chronicle inadvertently points out the conflict between these stated goals.

Light rail will disrupt neighborhoods. And a minimum, it requires Metro to seize private property to build its lines and stations. The mayoral candidates have no problem disrupting neighborhoods when government is doing the disrupting, but are vehemently opposed when a private company attempts to do something considered disruptive.

This is the type of contradictory stance that is typical of politicians. Having abandoned the principle of individual rights (whose protection is the only proper purpose of government), they stand on both sides of fence. They try to solve each problem, whether real or perceived, in complete isolation from any other issue. They think that their proposals are the light at the end of the tunnel. What they don't realize is that that light is from an oncoming train.

Houston's 2009 Mayoral Race

I have been commenting on Houston's mayoral candidates for nearly a year. As the candidates head down the home stretch, a recap of their positions is warranted.

What is particularly interesting about this set of candidates is how little they have done to differentiate themselves from the others. Certainly, there are superficial differences: we have a white urban planner, a black attorney, a gay city official, and a Republican Hispanic. But on the issues that matter, their positions are remarkably similar.

Peter Brown
As long as I have followed city politics, Peter Brown has been calling for "planning". While he denies that he supported zoning in the 1990s, planning without land-use regulations is a pointless exercise. And Brown knows this--he has favored all sorts of land-use controls, from outlawing billboards to stopping the Ashby High Rise. Brown wants to bring the arbitrary and tyrannical edicts of zoning to Houston, but he lacks the courage and the honesty to call it zoning. He wants government to control land-use in the city, and thinks that if we call it something else then it somehow be more palatable.

Brown isn't content to limit government controls to land-use. He wants to expand the city's control over the economy as well. His white paper on the economy states that government should get out of the way of business, yet he has seemingly never seen a government regulation that he doesn't like. He wants to create an "Office of Economic Development and Job Creation" that will determine which industries the city will encourage, and then use tax dollars to train workers.

Brown has tried to position himself as the hier to Bill White. He wants to continue White's program to make Houston America's greenest city. Brown supports light rail, providing job training to gang members (instead of throwing their sorry butts in jail), and virtually anything else you can think of that will involve spending taxpayer money. While he claims that he will reduce government waste (and which politician has ever claimed that he would increase government waste!?!), he continues to advocate programs and policies that will kill jobs, raise taxes, and destroy individual liberty.

Brown's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- F-
Individual Rights-- F-


Annise Parker
Parker is the closest thing to a career politician in the mayoral mix. She has served on city council and as city controller. As a member of council, she had an atrocious record, supporting preservationist ordinances and "quality of life" issues. She has opposed the Ashby High Rise and declared that we need more regulations on development.

Parker has made a big issue of her management of the city's finances as controller. Yet, the city is facing a budget deficit and she has offered nothing more than a vow to cut waste (where have we heard that?). She has offered no concretes on how she will do this, and given her track record, we can be sure that she will support more government intervention into the economy and our lives.

Parker's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- F-
Individual Rights-- F-


Gene Locke
Locke is the only candidate who is not currently an elected official, but he certainly is a political insider. He has served in numerous appointed positions, including city attorney. Because of this, he doesn't have quite the track record of Brown and Parker. For the most part, Locke is in lock-step with Brown and Parker on the issues.

Unlike Brown and Parker, Locke does seem to be reaching out to Republicans a little more than the other two Democrats. While this might be a good political strategy to get elected, it doesn't bode well for the city. The likely result will be a few more crumbs thrown to Republicans for their support, and more appeasing from the party that once had some desire to defend individual freedom.

Locke's Scorecard:
The Economy-- D-
Land-Use-- D-
Individual Rights-- D-


Roy Morales
Morales is the lone Republican in the race, yet he has garnered little support from the party. In some ways that weighs in his favor from my point of view, but he has done little to really separate himself from the Three Stooges.

Like the others, Morales says that he will combat government waste. And like the others, he hasn't told us how he will do it. (I did email him with specific suggestions, but I never heard back and he apparently has not taken my advice.)

To his credit, Morales has opposed light rail. For this he gets some points. However, he also aligned himself with TJ Huntley, whose campaign lasted about fifteen minutes. Huntley wanted to turn the mayor's office into a bully pulpit for Christianity, and this loses Morales some points.

Morales's Scorecard:
The Economy-- C
Land-Use-- C
Individual Rights-- C


Brian Phillips
Admittedly I'm not a real candidate, but I get so disgusted writing about my choices that I have to write something to cheer myself up. Back in February I announced my "virtual" candidacy. Since that time, I have continued to address the issues, not that anyone in the media cared (though the Chronicle and other local bloggers have been linking to my posts with growing frequency).

Unlike the other candidates, I provided a clearly stated set of principles. In my platform statements I explained how limiting government to its proper function of protecting individual rights would benefit the economy, allow us to reduce taxes, and improve our quality of life. Not surprisingly, I am in complete agreement with myself on these issues.

Phillips's Scorecard:
The Economy-- A+
Land-Use-- A+
Individual Rights-- A+


I do not know if I will vote for mayor. If I do vote, it will be for Roy Morales. He will not make the runoff, which means that I will then be faced with the decision of voting for one of the Three Stooges or abstaining. But that is a decision I can delay for at least a few months. In the meantime I will continue to work for the day when I can rate a viable candidate with something above a "C".

Money Down the Drain

Back in February I proposed that the city privatize its water and sewer services. And by privatize I mean sell them--assets and all--to private companies. I do not mean psuedo-privatization, in which the city retains the assets and outsources operations. We now have more evidence of the city's mismanagement of those systems, and under the watch of our businessman mayor Bill White. (HT: houblog via blogHouston)

KHOU reports that city council is considering a rate hike for water and sewer services.

In a report to city council members Wednesday, White recommended hiring Dallas-based McKinsey, a private consulting firm, to examine ways to save money within the system before any rate hike.

“The important thing to do is to scrub the system,” White said. “Other big cities have been raising rates. We want to go through this process before we have a rate increase.”

When a system is spending more than it brings in, raising rates seems like a logical conclusion. And when your "customers" have no options you don't have to worry too much about losing them. The city has captive "customers", and the only repercussions to a rate increase are angry voters and more people needing assistance to pay their water bills.

Unlike a business, which must attract customers through voluntary consent, the city has a monopoly on the provision of water and sewer services in Houston. While the federal government pursues anti-trust charges against Microsoft and other companies, municipalities are allowed to engage in far more egregious "anti-competitive" activities. While private businesses cannot outlaw competition and threaten violators with prison time, the city government certainly can.

City council is looking for ways to turn the system around and break even. Interestingly, at least part of the answer is known:

White said the McKinsey study will also help the city trace another mystery: hundreds of millions of gallons of treated drinking water vanish from the city’s aging underground pipes every year, never reaching paying customers.

“Why do we produce more water than is consumed?” White asked. “There is a lot of lost inventory within this system. We’d better find out where it goes.”

Imagine a business that allowed so much lost inventory. Such a business would not be a business for long. A business has a financial incentive to identify the cause of lost inventory and take the actions necessary to stop that loss. A municipality has no such incentive, despite the proclamations of city officials to operate in a more business-like manner. The fact is, a municipality cannot operate like a business. Government is an agent of force; a business must obtain the voluntary consent of its customers. If the city truly wishes that water and sewer services be operated more like a business, then the only solution is to allow those services to be provided by businesses.

Admittedly, these are some practical challenges in completely privatizing water and sewer services. The infrastructure requirements for such services lead many to believe that they are natural monopolies. In industries that lend themselves to this claim, such as utilities, our infinitely wise government has decided to create coercive monopolies by making competition illegal. While claiming that private, unregulated companies would gouge consumers, the government incompetently manages the resource and rapes consumers whenever it chooses.

But practical challenges are merely that--challenges. By privatizing water and sewer services, we will allow innovation. We will permit entrepreneurs to find new, better, and less expensive methods for delivering water to homes and businesses. More importantly, we will remove an artificial barrier to economic activity and an immoral infringement of individual rights.

When your water bill goes up, the proper response is not to complain to your councilman. The proper response is to demand that the city restrict itself to the protection of your rights. The proper response is to demand that the city get out of the water and sewer business. Until it does, you will continue to watch your money go down the drain.