Metro plan backers have upper hand
Foes lack funds to counter bond approval campaign
Supporters of a $3.5 billion transit bond election less than four weeks away have a sizable — but not unexpected — advantage over critics, who plan a grassroots campaign to counter what has been flurry of educational campaigns using taxpayer dollars and aggressive catering to the Houston area’s business community.
Moving to the Future, the political action committee backing the bond amassed more than $437,000 in money or in-kind contributions, according to its financial report field last week, which includes fundraising until Sept. 26. The group is campaigning to support the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s long-range transportation plan, the first phase of which will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot.
The fundraising by supporters gives them a roughly 73-to-1 money advantage to the opposition Responsible Houston political committee, which has collected $6,000 from two donors, according to its Oct. 7 campaign report.
The disparity continues in terms of what each is spending money on. Responsible Houston, the PAC formed to oppose the bonds on the grounds it is wasted spending and unwise to give Metro a blank check for rail and bus projects without more specifics, spent most of its money, about $5,250, on website develop
ment to push a grassroots online message.
Metro chairwoman and organizer of some of the Moving to the Future efforts Carrin Patman, meanwhile, personally has spent nearly $4,600 at FedEx Office — spending not included as part of her $50,000 contribution — on slick paper copies of the long-range plan she is trying to persuade voters to approve.
“We worked hand in hand together to develop a plan the community could support,” Patman told the Greater Houston Partnership at a luncheon on Oct. 3.
That political support, however, is overshadowed by the public money Metro can use to alert voters about the plans — an ad blitz across television, radio, newspapers, even posters at bus stations and stops, that has drawn criticism from opponents.
Metro is asking voters for permission on Nov. 5 to borrow up to $3.5 billion for the first phase of its longrange transit plan developed over the last 18 months. The plan calls for 75 miles of rapid bus service, an additional 16 miles of light rail and about $600 million for street and sidewalk improvements and new buses to make local routes easier to access and more frequent.
Though light rail to Hobby Airport dominated discussions to finalize the plan, vast parts of the Metro service region would be touched by the proposed projects, notably the bus rapid transit projects that promise dedicated lanes for buses that will stop at platforms, offering service akin to light rail but on rubber tires. A major BRT line is planned from the Tidwell Transit Center in northeast Houston through downtown and westward to Westchase, stopping at various spots, including Greenway Plaza, along the way. Another BRT route will connect downtown and Bush Intercontinental Airport, relying partly on two-way high-occupancy toll, or HOT, lanes along Interstate 45.
The borrowed money, to be repaid by future revenues from Metro’s 1 percent sales tax, would be combined with federal money and existing Metro funds for the first round of projects, which are estimated to cost $7.5 billion. The order of projects would be determined by their readiness, and follow more public comment and final determination of exact routes.
It is that lack of certainty that gives some skeptics pause.
“I just don’t like the idea of voting on something when I don’t know exactly what I’m voting for,” said Chris Paul, 37, who lives near the Energy Corridor.
Local Republican Party officials condemned the plan, and mayoral candidates Bill King and Tony Buzbee have voiced concerns about adding light rail. Mayor Sylvester Turner has backed the plan.
On Monday, the Houston Realty Business Coalition announced it would back the bond proposal, noting the region’s economic growth is going to necessitate more transit as people move to the area. The alternative, the group said, is a growing region crippled by congestion.
Transit officials, notably Patman, have cobbled together a large coalition of community and business groups, drawing support from the engineering and construction firms that often do business with municipalities and Metro, as well as law firms and real estate companies.
Of the total haul, however, $200,000 comes from a handful of donors. Patman and her husband, lawyer James Derrick, each gave $50,000. Another $50,000 was contributed by HNTB, a national engineering firm that has done extensive business with Metro, Harris County and the Texas Department of Transportation. Camden Property Trust, a real estate trust based in Houston and headed by Ric Campo, chairman of the Port of Houston Authority and active in local business groups, and KIT Professionals Inc., an engineering firm that has worked with local agencies and Metro in the past, each contributed $25,000.
The most sizable, and contentious, campaign bank, however, is the approximately $8.5 million Metro has set aside for education and outreach. Under state campaign rules, the agency can use public money to explain the long-range plan and even alert voters that the election is Nov. 5, though that has drawn criticism.
“These people are supposed to safeguard taxpayer money, not waste it,” critic and media consultant Wayne Dolcefino said last month, arguing the agency should not spend public money to advance its election chances.
State law prohibits the agency from deceiving voters or using language in the educational materials that is “reasonably likely to influence a voter to vote for or against the measure.”
Critics of the bond issue have said Metro crosses that line because the advertisements use language such as “we’ve got a plan for traffic” and claim the bond referendum will not raise taxes.
“We think it’s clear that the work Metro is doing is likely to influence voters,” critics said in a statement from Dolcefino’s consulting firm.
Metro spokesman Jerome Gray said the advertisements were approved by outside lawyers hired by the agency, to verify that Metro complied with the rules.
Metro officials still were assessing final contracts for advertising buys and could not provide a breakdown strictly devoted to the longrange plan, but Gray said the likely total for September and October would be around $5 million.
Any complaint about the ads would have to be filed to the Texas Ethics Commission, which would determine whether Metro violated the state law. A violation could lead to a misdemeanor charge or fine by the agency. Complaints are made public only if substantiated and the candidate or PAC is punished beyond a minor infraction, or if the ethics commission conducts a hearing into the complaint or it lands in a local court.
“A court would probably find that the law as written probably, just barely, allows an advertisement of this nature,” said Chad Dunn, an Austin attorney and general counsel for the state Democratic Party.
Texas allows agencies to take their messages straight to voters, Dunn said, as long as they avoid “magic words” such as “vote for,” “support,” or “oppose.”
Dunn said he expects lawmakers to reconsider exactly what the rules allow, within the confines of what public money can and should be used for.
“On the one hand, people argue that allowing such expenditures essentially allows the tail to wag the dog: Government influencing the views of the voters,” Dunn wrote in an email. “On the other hand, people argue that voters are smart enough to sort through the issues on their own and any restriction on public speech, even by the government, infringes on the First Amendment.”