The Greater Houston Partnership may have thrown its weight behind Metro’s desire to consider a Richmond rail route (such a stretch since three of its board members are also Metro board members), but the funding Metro needs has to go through Rep. John Culberson’s Congressional committee:
Culberson said his impression is that opposition from homeowners and businesses becomes strong west of Mandell Street in the Museum District.
When a resident who lives near Weslayan and Richmond objected to the line, Culberson replied, “I think you folks west of Shepherd ought to rest easy.”
“If a majority is opposed, I’m going to be there for them,” he told the crowd of about 900 at Rice University.
“Metro has to come through my committee,” said Culberson, the only Texan on the House Appropriation Committee’s transportation subcommittee.
That’s sure to give Richmond Avenue proponents fits.
One thing that keeps coming back to bite Metro is the language Metro put in the 2003 referendum — Westpark. If Metro tries to wriggle out of honoring the Westpark commitment that it (barely) sold voters, Metro will be sending a bad message on any future votes…for anything:
While past ballot language concerning light-rail plans did not guarantee a Westside line would run down Westpark, many at the meeting who live and work in the Richmond Avenue area claim that’s what they thought they were voting for.
That’s the key. Voters who DID vote yes thought they were approving a Westpark line. If Metro wants to hang its hat on a little disclaimer, it should be prepared for tremendous skepticism in the future whenever it needs public approval, since it will appear that Metro could go back on its word at any time.
Along the same line, Metro sold poor, minority and elderly communities on increased bus service. We have seen how that has worked out and that could also come back to haunt Metro.
RELATED: Former Metro Chairman Arthur Schechter’s letter assuring future Metro Solutions’ votes
