GLO denies all flood aid funding to Harris County

[HookTheBrotherUp]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

We need those funds to complete projects that, in many cases, are already underway. I dont know if you go to Meyerland, but I live there and I can already see a huge difference since Harvey. They are widening Braes Bayou and have made modifications to roads. The proof is that streets that always flood never do anymore no matter how hard it rains and the Braes is far less full than it would normally get after a heavy rain.

Things ARE getting done. I credit Lina Hidalgo with a lot of it. She's been absolutely great on this issue.

That is good to hear, I remember the countless floods in the area, but it has been a long time in the 'pipeline'. All the way back to the 80s as I recall, when Aramco was there at Beechnut and 610... what's that, almost 40 years ago!

Here is the problem, the Rain Fee was included on a ballot and the sole purpose was to pay for projects as you mention, but then the City quietly changed the language after they lost in court as to whether it was a tax, or a fee, because how those get approved depends on whether it is a tax, or fee. BTW, there are people reading this that weren't even born when this came about!

Anyway, after the change, the City used the Rain Fee money to pay off debt, to balance their budget, and other urgent projects. That was not on the ballot that I voted on. Bait and switch. Again, the politicians who did this did not give a shyt about what the taxpayers had to say about it, and did it in a sneaky way. Why? Because they know if they told the truth, it would not have been approved.

The City of Houston got their wrists slapped, but the fee is still with us. It was only supposed to be there for 20 years, but they wrote in language so that it could be extended, not by a vote of the citizens, but by City Council. Does anyone want to guess what they have done?

So they get this Rain Fee revenue, and spend just a small amount on actual flood mitigation, because the law requires them to. The rest, some 75-80% goes to OTHER projects. So it is like double-billing by the City. 'Back to what I said, no responsibility to manage funds correctly, and most importantly, no accountability.

BTW, this is not Rocket-Science to uncover. Be a sleuth, go and do Internet searches on the subject, you will see how this has been mismanaged. You'll find data on both sides, but a majority of it will be pointing out how the City has abused the funds.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp

That is good to hear, I remember the countless floods in the area, but it has been a long time in the 'pipeline'. All the way back to the 80s as I recall, when Aramco was there at Beechnut and 610... what's that, almost 40 years ago!

Here is the problem, the Rain Fee was included on a ballot and the sole purpose was to pay for projects as you mention, but then the City quietly changed the language after they lost in court as to whether it was a tax, or a fee, because how those get approved depends on whether it is a tax, or fee. BTW, there are people reading this that weren't even born when this came about!

Anyway, after the change, the City used the Rain Fee money to pay off debt, to balance their budget, and other urgent projects. That was not on the ballot that I voted on. Bait and switch. Again, the politicians who did this did not give a shyt about what the taxpayers had to say about it, and did it in a sneaky way. Why? Because they know if they told the truth, it would not have been approved.

The City of Houston got their wrists slapped, but the fee is still with us. It was only supposed to be there for 20 years, but they wrote in language so that it could be extended, not by a vote of the citizens, but by City Council. Does anyone want to guess what they have done?

So they get this Rain Fee revenue, and spend just a small amount on actual flood mitigation, because the law requires them to. The rest, some 75-80% goes to OTHER projects. So it is like double-billing by the City. 'Back to what I said, no responsibility to manage funds correctly, and most importantly, no accountability.

BTW, this is not Rocket-Science to uncover. Be a sleuth, go and do Internet searches on the subject, you will see how this has been mismanaged. You'll find data on both sides, but a majority of it will be pointing out how the City has abused the funds.

The rain fee was not used to pay debt, nor was it used on projects not involving drainage. There was no 20 year limit on the ballot either. I have found no evidence of abuse, but there is a lot of misinformation spread by people with no knowledge of accounting.

[kwr]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

We need those funds to complete projects that, in many cases, are already underway. I dont know if you go to Meyerland, but I live there and I can already see a huge difference since Harvey. They are widening Braes Bayou and have made modifications to roads. The proof is that streets that always flood never do anymore no matter how hard it rains and the Braes is far less full than it would normally get after a heavy rain.

Things ARE getting done. I credit Lina Hidalgo with a lot of it. She's been absolutely great on this issue.

My buddy who lives in Meyerland says the same thing.

[DabOnEm]

It's a shame it took several historical floods for flood control to be taken more seriously in Houston but better late than never as they say. Glad yall can move around the neighborhood when it rains versus being stranded wherever you are.