Texas Blue Mailbag: Week of 7/1/07

This week, we talk about... wait, what? Ron Paul has more money than McCain?

PM asks:

Is Ron Paul third in cash on hand among Republican presidential candidates? You're kidding, right?

Josh answers:

No, sir, I am not kidding. At least, Ron Paul says he has enough cash on hand, $2.4 million, to rank third among all Republican presidential candidates. If this is true and he is actually beating John McCain, that means the following:

1. John McCain's heart will break from this kind of embarrassment.
2. Ron Paul doesn't know what to spend money on. I know he's a fiscal conservative and all, but come on.
3. This will not make Ron Paul president.
4. The Republican operation is, on the whole, in worse shape than we thought.

Keep in mind, though: Paul didn't raise more money than McCain, he just has more left than McCain. Assuming this is true, which you can't know until you see the report.

LS from San Antonio asks:

This is another in a long line of fights locally over the fairness and feasibility of toll roads. The last memorable conflict came over the proposal to turn the far north / south lanes of HI 281 near Bulverde into toll roads. (One skirmish involved the people who run the traffic lights for local government, and who obviously wanted the toll roads, "accidentally" adjusting the stop lights so they kept people waiting at them longer at rush hour. When they were busted, their response was, to paraphrase: "Oops.")

That measure was defeated. Now comes the battle over turning the East - West lanes of Loop 1604, also in the rapaciously expanding far north side of the city, into a toll road to pay for more lanes.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA062707.1B.1604.hearin...

Those against it include an unlikely alliance of tax watchers (or, "Whiners," as in "Waaahh.. I want a nice easy life, but I don't want to PAY for it... Waaaahhh!") and environmentalists. Those for it include people who have joined the mass migration to the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer area and naturally only want to continue their quest to make their lives easier and more convenient, environmental concerns be damned. If these people were given the choice between a latte and Bambi, there would not be a seconds hesitation before the soy decaf lever would be pulled and Bambi would be joining his mommy in the great deer lease in the sky.

However: Having driven the loop many times, and believing without hesitation the article's statement that traffic will double on those roads in 30 years, I recognize something must be done to handle the traffic.

Is there a similar scenario in the state where urban growth and environmental concerns have reached an equilibrium? (I left out the tax whiners' cries on purpose.)

Thanks for the time.

George thoughtfully replies:

Ever notice how Josh takes the softballs for himself and leaves me all the hard ones?

So, to answer your question: the "equilibrium" of environmental protection and urban growth is in the eye of the beholder. Sounds like a cop out, doesn't it? I agree — but that doesn't make it any less true. Maximal environmental preservation would involve the absence of any planned human intrusion into the area — read: urban growth — and maximal capacity for urban growth would involve the most efficient use of all available land for housing, transportation, and all the other trappings of modern urban life — and you can't house people in trees. (Not many, anyway.) Though urban development can be made less environment-damaging, and environmental concerns can be handled in ways that allow for urban development, both require a certain degree of compromise on each side. And the "proper" amount of compromise on each side is highly dependent on who you ask (and, arguably, what large civil engineering firm they work for).

To not leave you only with an unsatisfactory explanation of why "equilibrium" basically depends on who's in office at the time, I'll give you an example: The Central Texas Turnpike was designed to blend in with its surrounding environment, and was landscaped with native Texas flowers and other wildlife. Is that an acceptable compromise? A huge chunk of land still had to be taken over to create it, and the re-planting of local wildlife in controlled areas along the side of the highway doesn't exactly contribute to the ecosystem around it. I think many people recognize the need for the accommodation of traffic in the area, and at least an effort was made as far as not making the area look like a concrete wasteland, but whether or not that is sufficient is really up to you.

For more on the ecological impact of transportation infrastructure, and what is being done about it, I would go to TxDOT's Environmental Affairs division. But I wouldn't expect too many hardcore environmentalists in a state agency controlled by a strongly conservative executive branch. Forewarned is forearmed.

CB asks:

If Democracy can't rest on our nation's birthday, when can it? My birthday? YOUR birthday?

Josh deadpans:

Democracy is a full-time job. Often my friends ask me how Democracy is doing, and I answer, "It is doing okay, but could be doing better, which is why I work all the time, defending Democracy." In the interest of full disclosure, I hope Democracy won't mind if I take a half-day off from It on my birthday. True to form though, we worked quite a bit on our nation's birthday, and we hope Democracy remembers that come time for our Democracy Performance Review.

BP also asks:

Have any Democrats been to Iraq?

George answers:

There have been a number of visits to Iraq by Democratic legislators over the course of the "war." This year, offhand I seem to recall that both Pelosi and Sen. Clinton took a trip to Iraq in middle to late January. And the internets tell me that Congressman Joe Sestak also went, around the middle of April.

I think I must've made Josh feel guilty with that comment about taking all the easy ones.

DM asks:

I have a question about when a community makes an appeal against a business like, for example - Circle K. Gets thousands of signatures. People go to the city council chamber meeting and sees the Circle K rep shaking hands with people in city council before the appeal is presented (I went up and made some comments about the nature of Circle K's and their damage to the local community, etc. Fully aware of this).

Is this a situation where the City Council is simply wrung against you, or is there another method to be utilized? It was sort of disparaging. During the appeal process we learned that essentially the vote had already been taken in 7-0 for the circle k to be built. They didn't even wait to see the signatures or the discourse. It was all a sort of abject formality. I've known some city councils to be amazingly unresponsive but this sort of took the cake.

Josh answers:

This is one of those questions where every answer is potentially wrong. There may be some sort of code in your city about lobbying, and who gets to be where or do what outside of public meetings. There's also the question of whether your municipality has a mechanism for petitions to put matters to a referendum. Were there enough signatures for that to happen, or was that even an option?

People sitting on a city council are often at odds between business and community. They want to bring in economic development but have to strike a balance between that, making sure the business they bring in is good for the environment and the neighborhood, and ensuring they don't create a shift in a neighborhood that results in gentrification. That's the ideal, anyways; as we all know, people aren't perfect, and a lot of city council members in a lot of city councils have inappropriate relationships with business.

I once had a Boston city councilman tell me that you can have the wrong kind of relationship with business and developers, but you can never have the wrong kind of relationship with your constituents if you represent them right. It sounds like the city council in your case had some concerned citizens and business interests and favored one over the other. "Thousands of signatures" seems like enough to keep it from being a foregone conclusion, at least.