Several days ago, Chronicle political reporter Alan Bernstein reported on part of the conversation among GOP Harris County Judge candidates Charles Bacarisse and Ed Emmett and the Chronicle Editorial Board. This excerpt sums up the coverage:
The Republican contenders for Harris County judge disagreed Thursday over Metro’s plan to put a light rail line along Richmond Avenue near southwest Houston.
“Unless the courts overturn it, I think the logical place to put it is down Richmond,” said incumbent Ed Emmett, a transportation consultant. “That’s where the people are, that’s where the businesses are.”
Challenger Charles Bacarisse, the former district clerk, took the opposite side.
“The county judge should listen to the people of Harris County,” he said. “There has been a loud and long call for no rail on Richmond, and not only because it would destroy the neighborhoods it would run through.”
Agreeing with opponents of the transit project, Bacarisse said the route plan does not conform to Metro’s 2003 ballot referendum, which mentioned the nearby Westpark corridor.
“The word ‘Richmond’ is never mentioned in the ballot language,” Bacarisse added, “and if they want to change it they should just go back to the voters and ask for permission.”
Emmett countered that the voice of the public has been expressed by neighborhood associations along the transit route, which he said support the light rail line as a bloc.
“If these people don’t speak for the people, then I don’t know who does,” the county government chief said.
The candidates in the March 4 primary made the remarks to the Houston Chronicle editorial board.
Now, some of us share Bacarisse’s view of METRO’s Westpark corridor bait-and-switch, and think the transit organization should follow through on promises made (or go back to the voters with a revamped transit plan — an idea I could definitely get behind).
That being said, it would have been nice to know more about the conversation that took place between the candidates and the Editorial LiveJournalists. In the internet age, it would be much more useful and informative for the Editorial LiveJournalists to record video of these meetings, so we can see what questions were asked, what answers were given, and judge the candidates for ourselves.
We especially would have been interested in knowing the candidates’ views more generally on the county’s role in oversight of the transit organization, and would have been interested in knowing the candidates’ views on Harris County residents who pay taxes to METRO, but aren’t really able to take advantage of METRO services. Maybe those topics were covered; maybe they weren’t. It would be nice to pull up a video or podcast of the meeting and find out.
Instead, we have the Editorial LiveJournalists, whose misadventures include creating a new treaty and a new radioactive isotope, “screening” candidates for us — not terribly helpful.
PREVIOUSLY: GOP DA candidates meet with Editorial LiveJournalists.
ANNE ADDS: Kevin makes a great point here:
[…]and would have been interested in knowing the candidates’ views on Harris County residents who pay taxes to METRO, but aren’t really able to take advantage of METRO services.
If I have my information correct, I believe Fort Bend County protested something like this, where Metro was collecting some taxes out there, but providing no transit services. The money now goes to Fort Bend County’s roads fund, or something like that.
So why should Metro collect the tax revenue from areas of Harris County that have no transit services for many, many miles? That money should go into Harris County’s roads funds, since that’s the transit we use. It’s clear where Metro’s priorities are, so let Metro officials collect the revenue from areas where they have placed their priorities.
