How tight is Houston's drainage tax 'lock box'? Bike trails funded by Rebuild Houston money for streets and drainage

I used to be a supporter of Mayor Parker, but I've lost faith in her. First the back-and-forth on red light cameras, then the back-and-forth on how large the drainage fees would be, and now this. You can't put stock in anything she says.

Who would have guessed that the city would end up wasting taxpayers' money on frivolous pet projects rather than the promised street and drainage improvements? Oh, yes - those "teabagging activists" (did the mayor really say that??), that's who.

Pathetically, completely predictable. The question is whether it's reversible.

Thanks, TW, for exposing this breach of promise by the Mayor and city - pleaee keep the pressure on.

I'm all for more hike and bike trails and I don't care where the money comes from. If the city has to get the funds (which are a very tiny percentage of the collected revenue) from the drainage tax then so be it. There would be a whole lot less flooding and road funding issues in the City of Houston if all of our regional transportation funding was not being siphoned off by Judge Emmett and his cronies to build the completely unnecessary and extremely expensive Grand Parkway. Creating an off street bike trail encourages people to ride a bike instead of a car which in turn reduces road congestion and pavement wear and tear, so in a very real way bike paths are a road improvement.

SusanS, TexasTea, ADifferentOpinion: Thanks for your thoughtful comments, and for reading Texas Watchdog. Tell your friends. :-)

TexasTea: The mayor really did say "teabaggers." It was indeed an interesting choice of phrase.

ADifferentOpinion, your post about Grand Parkway reminds me that that is another large-scale public project that deserves continuing scrutiny. There has been a lot of reporting on the Grand Parkway, and if there's a new wrinkle or angle that you think Texas Watchdog should look into, please let us know, or e-mail me at leeann(at)texaswatchdog.org.

- Lee Ann O'Neal, Texas Watchdog

This activity just underscores that 'dedicated funds' is a myth. Like social security, the funds (a 45% tax increase, based on total tax income for city versus the 'new' income from the 'rain tax') have gone 'into the pile' so now there are shell games, etc. to explain/justify the expenditures- all the while the Houston taxpayers fund 'out-of-control' spending at city hall. The mechanism of this administration (run by a former controller!) allowing the folks that profit from the decision making actually BE the decision makers is outrageous. Other cities around us seem to maintain their infrastructure without a ''rain tax'. As one current council member told me,'We can ALWAYS find money for something we want!', the city now has 45% more money to 'play with', and it is being collected on a HIGHLY REGRESSIVE format!

How dare the city of Houston improve an underutilized asset to the city. The amount of money put towards these Hike and Bike trails is a drop in the bucket. These trail improvements are far overdue. Tea party extremist would rather live in a total shithole than spend a dime on these "frivolous" city improvements. Please keep your nose out of inner Houston and in your whitewashed suburbs.

BeardedPharmacist, your tone doesn't exactly give a good impression for bikeway proponents. To respond to your comment, the fee proponents clearly stated that this fund would be spent on drainage and street improvements, prioritized by the city's worst cases and regardless of location. In other words, take the politics out and address the worst pavement and drainage needs. There was no question that the sales pitch was talking about broken up concrete streets (you undoubtedly know where some are) and flooding problems. I'm all for bikeway improvements (I ride a road bike), but finance those improvements through the proper funds.

In January 2010, the Houston Chronicle printed a letter from me that argued against Prop 1. I said that the City was doing it backwards; they were going to set up a secure stream of revenue first and then decide how to spend it to help with flooding. They really need the plan first and then the funding can be determined. They can't be trusted with a secure stream of revenue. Sadly, i was exactly right. They have now stolen that money to build bike paths. We need to re-vote on Prop 1.

According to Council Member Stardig's office this story about Prop 1 funds being spent for trails and bike paths is incorrect. I have corresponded with staff in that office via email and they confirm the story is inaccurate.

@Tom McCarty.... ahh yes, Stardig's office staff claims the story is false... therefore it is.

Nothing to see here... move along!

Awesome. We need more off road hike n bike trails! I would ride my bike to work if I didn't have to worry about being run over by a car. Painting lines on streets and calling them bike lanes doesn't count. They aren't used because they aren't safe.

To all of you that don't have an issue with using dedicated drainage funds for other projects then YOU are part of the problem. I didn't vote for this piece of crap legislation just for the very reason of this article. So called "dedicated lock box" funds never are. They always get diverted for some special interest group--there's always "some reason" why just a little of the money can be spent for other projects. Before you know it the "fee" has to be increased again because the drainage projects don't have enough money--because it's been diverted. The lottery ticket legislation was sold to the public that it would only be used just for schools then a week before the election Guv Richards declared the proceeds would be placed in the general fund. Hmmmmm this fee business is another bait & switch shell game played by professional sharks our beloved politicians.