The Chronicle has a couple of must-read $AFEclear stories today. One is about the city of Houston (not) partnering with Harris County’s Motorist Assistance Program and one is about the different plans city councilmembers are proposing, instead of Mayor White’s revised $AFEclear program.
The MAP story is frustrating to read, because the city doesn’t want to join MAP, and of course we all know why — MAP won’t make the city any money. Mayoral spokesman Pat Trahan offered this insight about why the city can’t join MAP:
White’s press secretary, Patrick Trahan, said MAP and Safe Clear are different programs. MAP focuses on getting motorists safely moving again, while Safe Clear aims to clear congestion caused by stalled cars and rubbernecking.
Aha. I’m sure Trahan makes nice money to come up with deep thinking like that.
The last paragraph pretty well sums it up:
Wainwright said MAP has assisted about 600,000 motorists since 1986, an average of 128 per day since the program is limited to weekdays, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Safe Clear has towed about 100 vehicles per day.
Welcome to Houston.
The second story details some different $AFEclear plans floating around city council:
White’s spokesman Frank Michel said Tuesday that the mayor was conferring with council members who want the cost of the “free” tows to be paid instead by reducing the fees the contractors pay the city for the exclusive right to operate in specific freeway segments.
In effect, Michel said, this would pay for the free tows out of funds earmarked for the Safe Clear program, rather than out of general funds available for various purposes.
Council members Carol Alvarado, Ronald Green and Adrian Garcia said they support that change.
[snip]
Council members Mark Goldberg and Toni Lawrence, who support the program, suggested that instead of providing tows for free, the city should give motorists time to come up with the money.
“If someone can’t pay — maybe they don’t have the immediate means — they would get a citation which would require them to go to a municipal court within 30 days and pay,” Goldberg said. “If they sent in the money before the 30 days, they would not have to appear in court.”
Lawrence said: “If you don’t think you can come up with the extra money, your responsibility is to not get on the freeway.”
Councilman Mark Ellis agreed with giving drivers a grace period and suggested cutting the fee to $35 for short tows that would be free under White’s proposal.
Councilwoman Pam Holm said it is “inappropriate” for taxpayers to pay because a motorist’s car broke down.
“The city doesn’t owe that to anybody,” Holm said. “If you’re able to drive a car, you ought to be able to maintain it.”
Councilman Goldberg’s idea is one that he discussed on air with Dan Patrick the other day. Patrick thinks it’s a great idea, too. So if you break down and can’t afford the punitive towing fee, you get a court date, but if you can come up with the money in 30 days you can avoid court. That’s bizarre. A flat tire = a court date.
And, Councilwoman Holm (along with Toni Lawrence) is not going to win our compassionate politician of the week award with her comments. I wonder if Holm has ever had a tire blow out due to road debris that the city did not clear within six minutes?
(Dermatologist) Councilwoman Sekula-Gibbs wants the whole plan shelved. I strongly disagree with her smoking ban idea, but I agree with her on her $AFEclear opposition.
This morning the public has the opportunity to address Council and the vote should happen later today.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: Hey, we get to go PowerLine style on this post!
That’s the most coverage I’ve seen from the Chronicle on MAP. It might have been useful if they had run more on MAP earlier in the debate, like some blogs!
It’s interesting that Goldberg, Lawrence, Ellis, and Holm have endorsed (in some fashion) Patrick’s elitist notion that you shouldn’t be on the freeways if you don’t have $75 to spare. That should make for some useful opposition political research at some point. Even more interesting, though, is that it shows the extent to which Mayor White has sucked the air out of the old conservative council bloc that was so troublesome to the last mayor. We’ve seen stories suggesting Mayor White is politically wounded from this. I’d suggest otherwise.
It’s also interesting that Alvarado, Garcia, and Green advocate making a change in the accounting of funds. While that makes sense conceptually, it sort of illustrates how little they’ve had to say about the substance of this matter.
Why in the world didn’t the Chronicle story mention the difference between the estimated cost ($300,000) of the “free” towing and the SAFEclear fees collected from wreckers ($1 million, according to Bob Stein)? The story cried for those numbers, but they aren’t there.
RELATED COVERAGE: Houston towing policy stalls (Bruce Nichols, Dallas Morning News), Vote on new SAFEclear program could be delayed (Reggie Aqui, KHOU), Interview with Councilman Michael Berry (KHOU, Windows Media video).
