Let’s hear both sides of the story on county’s Astrodome decision

Tone deaf. That’s the term Paul Bettencourt — Republican state senator and self-appointed fiscal hawk over all things government — used to describe Harris County’s decision last week to pour $105 million into refurbishing the Astrodome.

I do see his overall point. On its face, the announcement doesn’t sound right to many people expecting the county government to prioritize flooding prevention and mitigation over the resurrection of a 53-year-old sports stadium that hasn’t been fit for occupancy in a decade. To some, investing in the dome seems a nostalgic indulgence in the face of urgent needs. Harvey victims are hoping for a tax break on properties that lost value. Those who use the criminal courts are calling for swift action on the flooded courthouse — either massive repairs or relocating the ill-planned complex once and for all.

All of the above should be priorities for County Judge Ed Emmett and the four commissioners.

But here’s the thing: leaders have to balance today’s needs with tomorrow’s. The long view has its virtues. And frankly, it’s been all to absent in the decisionmaking of Houston and Harris County. Shortsightedness has gotten us into a lot of trouble — from poor investment in flooding infrastructure to irresponsible growth that increased the region’s vulnerability during storms and rain events.

It has led us to pave over prairies. To bulldoze historic architecture and old trees and character. And yes, to leave an expensive, beloved, worldfamous landmark with a lot of tourism potential rotting away in full view of visitors and homefolk alike.

So, sure, it may seem tone deaf to pour money into the Astrodome right now, but the decision seems to be in tune with Houston’s future needs.

And critics of the decision either don’t understand the facts,

or willfully ignore them.

“We just need to recognize the obvious,” Bettencourt said in a statement. “If the county has money to ignore a public vote and refurbish the Astrodome, then they have the capability to offer flooded-out homeowners disaster reappraisal and to cut their property tax rate.”

That statement is misleading, to say to the least. But it seems to be what a lot of folks are thinking. So let’s address the naysayers, point by point, with a little help from Emmett, the county judge.

•CLAIM: Harris County voters already voted to demolish the dome.

No, they didn’t. They voted down a proposed bond for a much bigger $217 million renovation project. They said loud and clear that they didn’t want county commissioners borrowing money to fund a dome project, and Emmett says the county listened. He says the stripped-down plan to raze the dome for parking and open it for special events makes financial and logistical sense, as it will produce revenue, and also provide space for first responders during a storm, and potential storage for the medical supplies during those events. “Would you really want us spending $35 million to tear down a perfectly usable building?” Emmett says he asks people who bring up the vote. And he points out that demolition is no longer an option anyway, since the Texas Historical Commission has designated the Astrodome a state antiquities landmark, giving the stadium special protections against demolition.

•CLAIM: The county is just keeping the Astrodome open for nostalgic reasons.

Emmett has been clear he has no emotional connection to the building, as many Houstonians do. His main goal, he says, is to get the Astrodome generating revenue again that can be used to pay for contractually obligated upgrades to the NRG Complex.

•CLAIM: Taxpayers can’t afford to spend $105 million on the Astrodome.

Actually, they’re not. The total being spent comes from three buckets. The general revenue bucket, made up of property tax revenue, totals about $35 million, roughly the amount Emmett says it would cost to demolish the structure. The other two buckets include $35 million from hotel occupancy taxes, and $35 million from downtown parking revenue.

•CLAIM: This isn’t the right time, when people are still recovering from Hurricane Harvey, to be investing in the Astrodome.

Perception is what it is. True, the optics of the decision last week weren’t good. But plans to renovate the Astrodome were made before the storm. Emmett explained that commissioners said they weren’t going to commit money until engineers confirmed that the plan would work. “It just happened the engineering came back now,” Emmett said. “There’s no reason to sit on it.”

•CLAIM: The Astrodome is a money pit.

Not so much. The Astrodome is bought and paid for. The county spends about $170,000 a year to maintain the Dome in NRG Park, largely for electric bills and flood insurance.

•CLAIM: The money spent on the Astrodome should go instead toward reappraisals for people whose property was damaged by Harvey.

Emmett explained that it would have cost millions, with minimal benefit, to do reappraisals in October in the third-largest county in the country. He noted that reappraisals are set to be done in January anyway.

•CLAIM: The money approved for the Astrodome should be spent on the flooded criminal courthouse.

Emmett said the county is going forward on plans to renovate the courthouse, with bids expected to go out in March. Asked why the county didn’t just rebuild the flood-prone structure elsewhere, Emmett responded with the obvious: it’s a massive, expensive building, and plans to move some equipment, such as elevator machinery, up two levels should allow the building to remain usable in the event of another flood.

Emmett cautioned against either-or thinking.

“That’s just mindboggling if they think we’ve shut down every other project we have just to spend money on the Astrodome,” he said. “It’s a big county. We have a lot going on.”

Yes, people are still hurting in this county. And Emmett has made it clear that his No. 1 priority is flood mitigation. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be other priorities in a county of 1,700 square miles and 4.5 million people.

Upon reflection, if the Astrodome plan sounds tone deaf, maybe we’re not listening closely enough.