Recent editorials from Texas newspapers

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Texas newspapers:

Houston Chronicle. April 22, 2019.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority should proceed cautiously as it considers lifting its ban on commercial advertising on buses, rail cars, stations and shelters. That prohibition has served Houston well over the years, working together with old efforts by the city and Texas Legislature to greatly reduce the billboards that were once so ubiquitous here.

Before the laws changed in the 1980s, Houston had more than 10,000 billboard pedestals displaying so-called off-premises advertisements. Thanks to tough laws preventing new structures from being added, that number is now fewer than 1,500.

If Metro changes its rules, the city could suddenly see hundreds of new, large-format billboards on buses rolling through our neighborhoods.

That doesn’t sound like progress to us.

Still, there’s no mystery about why Metro is considering once more making a change. It’s money, and potentially lots of it. Those ads could bring in several million dollars annually. For a tax-supported and often cash-strapped transit agency, that’s a fact worth considering. And it’s no doubt why so many other big-city agencies sell advertising.

In doing so, however, the agency must be careful to tally the benefits against the costs that all of Houston will bear should it allow the advertising. Those costs are no less real because they are harder to measure than projected ad revenues.

Everywhere, it seems someone is looking to harvest our attention and sell it to someone with a message. It certainly isn’t new. But when viewers get tired of ads on television they have options, just as they do when they see ads online or in print in newspapers, magazines and more.

But those of us in Houston won’t have a choice but seeing these ads, to have our attention sold to the buyers, on buses, stops and stations. There are no opt-out provisions in those scenarios, other than to stay in one’s home all day and night.

Fortunately, plans to vote on this proposal have been delayed, as Houston Chronicle transportation writer Dug Begley reported Monday. The matter is being sent back to committee, and a vote isn’t expected until June.

We urge Metro to concentrate on three priorities between now and then:

- Let the public be heard. No public hearings are required, other than the always-available public comment sessions at regular Metro board meetings. But the board should hold them anyway, choosing two or more times when riders and non-riders alike can show up to speak for or against the proposal. It’s that important.

- Quantify the upside with as much precision as possible. So far, putting a finger on how much revenue can be expected has been difficult, but without a reliable figure any decision made will be made blind.

- If the ads are allowed, dedicate the revenue to specific improvements that everyday riders can feel. For example, ads on the buses could be linked to specific increases to frequency or ads on shelters could be linked to building new ones. Dropping the new funds into general revenue to be spent willy-nilly shouldn’t be an option.

Metro should take its time to get this right on the first try. It’s a decision whose consequences will be felt across the region. Full public hearings, precise forecasts and a fully transparent handling of any revenues is the least the agency should commit to.

___

The Dallas Morning News. April 23, 2019.

Too often, efforts to reduce homelessness run into not-in-my-backyard opposition, making it difficult for our community to address a major problem. That’s why it is important to find ways to produce outcomes that make the city a better place.

Case in point is the Salvation Army’s plan to build a $95 million, 20-acre campus for homeless services in an industrial area along the Stemmons Freeway frontage road at Viceroy Drive. Despite the need for a comprehensive center like this, some owners of nearby warehouses and office buildings have expressed valid concerns that the center would erode their property values.

Without a doubt, the center is needed to provide vital services for the homeless, and the Salvation Army’s promise to pay for it entirely through private donations is a major step toward making it happen. And, as this editorial board has indicated previously, if a major effort to help the homeless can’t be developed at this location, where can we ever build it?

But we are pleased that the city also is seizing this opportunity to explore ways to jumpstart economic redevelopment in this area of western Dallas with a plan to encourage property owners to reinvest in and provide jobs in exchange for tax relief and other incentives. The goal is to help address the concerns of property owners as well as to attract new commercial and industrial projects that would contribute to economic growth.

The city’s pilot plan, called a Neighborhood Empowerment Zone, would create a 390-acre, pizza-slice shaped investment zone between State Highway 183, the Stemmons frontage road and Round Table Drive. The Salvation Army site and about 180 industrial and commercial sites would fall within the borders.

The idea is a potential win for an area that hasn’t seen development in decades. Many buildings in the proposed empowerment zone are about 50 years old, in disrepair or at the end of their useful life.

The plan would create opportunities for affordable housing, and support workforce development and job training programs. Nonresidential uses would include data centers, warehouses and new retail. Each proposal would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be open to companies that create or retain at least 10 jobs and provide at least $250,000 in private investment. Property tax abatements could be as high as 90 percent for 10 years and business personal property tax abatements up to 50 percent for five years.

The Salvation Army’s proposal would dovetail nicely into this revitalization effort, especially with the possibility that businesses within the zone could hire people who successfully complete the Salvation Army’s workforce training program.

The neighborhood empowerment zone is a smart way to help to promote redevelopment that otherwise would not have taken place. The City Council is expected to consider the Salvation Army’s plan on May 8. We urge the council to approve the homeless center and take a serious look at the recommendation for an empowerment zone.

___

Amarillo Globe-News. April 23, 2019.

Wading into approximately 150 years of Texas tradition is never easy and often unwise, but the state is long overdue for a thoughtful conversation regarding the selection and election of judges. What troubles many is how judges run for election or reelection as a member of a party while pursuing a job that calls for complete objectivity.

It puts those seeking office in an awkward situation of sometimes soliciting campaign contributions from lawyers and firms that one day might try a case before their court. This can create a perception that partisan politics could color an impartial process. Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa) recently took on this thorny issue in filing House Bill 4504.

His proposal calls for the creation of an 11-member advisory board that would rate gubernatorial nominees for local and statewide judges as highly qualified, qualified or unqualified. Then, once approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, judges would run every four years in nonpartisan retention elections, allowing voters to decide if they will remain in office, according to our story this week.

Landgraf’s proposal was met with the kind of response one might expect in this day and age - highly vocal support and equally intense opposition. Those in favor say the system needs a serious look. Opponents say the voting public should not be cut out of any aspect of the process. There is also a political aspect to this as Democrats surmise Republicans are responding legislatively to the results of last fall’s general election that saw many GOP judges bounced from their jobs.

Imagine that. Politics in a political process. Regardless, Landgraf’s bill is a good place to begin a dialogue that should look for ways to remove party affiliations and keep voters engaged. Truth be told, all sides say it is virtually impossible to remove politics from judicial selection, but many agree the state has room to improve.

“If you want judges who rule in favor of Republicans or Democrats, in favor of the left or the right, in favor of the establishment or outsiders, in favor of the rich or the poor, then we should keep partisan elections,” Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, a Republican, said to the Judiciary Civil Jurisprudence Committee as reported in our story. “…the powerful will win that struggle.”

According to our story, other states have taken on this issue by adopting an appointment process based on a candidate’s qualifications, followed by retention elections giving voters a say. The approach varies from state to state with each process having its own imperfections.

“The fact that any system has holes in it … should not be a future excuse to do nothing,” former chief justice Tom Phillips said in our story. He added one solution might be to allow judges to run without being identified by party affiliation. “Judges should not be labeled,” he said. “It’s not a partisan job.”

Realistically, there is likely not enough time left in the session to get any real traction. Langdorf’s bill may be a good starting point, but it will need tweaking and committee approval before seeing light of day in the House. That said, two bills that have passed committee muster in both houses (HB 3601 and SB 1728) would create a committee to study judicial selection and recommend changes for the Legislature to consider when it convenes in 2021, our story pointed out.

That sounds like a great place to start because this issue is too important to rush through and important enough to keep on the radar.