Who's really to blame for network fiasco?

So now Houston mayor Annise Parker has decided to get herself in the middle of the fray between the Astros and Rockets' regional sports networks and satellite and cable TV providers. According to Mayor Parker, the fact that the network is available to no more than 40% of Houston cable and satellite subscribers is "intolerable." So, to break the impasse she has invited representatives from the sports network, DirecTV, AT&T and Suddenlink to sit down and work it out.

“The proud followers of our Houston teams – many of whom have paid for the venues where the Astros, Dynamo and Rockets compete – have been patient as your negotiations with Comcast SportsNet Houston have unfolded,” Parker wrote. “That said, as the Rockets push toward the NBA playoffs and the Astros and Dynamo seasons get underway, the situation is intolerable.”

Most telling is her comment about who paid for the stadiums in which the teams play. When these multi-million dollar playpens were built, the public was told the bill would be paid by folks who came to town and stayed in hotels and rented cars. Well, that's not entirely correct. Local government officials agreed to finance the stadiums and placed an additional tax on hotel rooms and rental cars. That additional tax was supposed to cover the costs of the stadiums. But, should those tax revenues fall below the level necessary to pay off the bondholders, who do you think is responsible for coughing up the balance?

In her pandering to the owners of the franchises, Mayor Parker seems to have forgotten that both the Astros and the Rockets had existing deals with one of Fox Sports' regional networks to televise their games. The Dynamo had no broadcast outlet for the majority of their games. The Fox network was available on all cable and satellite systems as part of a basic (or expanded basic - whatever the hell that means) subscription.

The ownership of the Astros and Rockets made the decision to go in with NBC Sports to create their own regional sports channel in hopes of making more money than they made with Fox. In order to bring in the revenue, the network has asked cable and satellite providers for a certain amount of money per subscriber. The providers say the asked for price is too expensive for them to make the channel available for basic packages.

Yes, the providers are trying to bid down the price so they can make more money carrying the channel. But the lion share of the blame must rest on the Astros and the Rockets for being greedy. The Astros have spent the last two seasons in the cellar and will likely sit on the basement sofa eating Cheetos come October. The Rockets are in the playoffs for the first time in I don't know how long (truth be told, I couldn't care less about basketball). I guess no one in the front offices realized that teams that aren't doing well on the field (or at the gate) don't have much leverage when it comes to negotiating television deals.

If Mayor Parker were really interested in the plight of Astros and Rockets fans she'd put the blame where it belongs - on the teams themselves. These teams had new stadiums built for them with the public picking up the tab (damn those poor folks who are scamming the government to get our tax dollars so they can sit at home all day and not work). With those kind of subsidies, these teams should be operated as a public trust.

Instead the owners of both teams have shown themselves to be greedy little monsters out to squeeze every dollar from the fans they can.

An alternative to jailing the homeless

Once again kudos are due to a target of my barbs. This time it's Annise Parker, the mayor of Houston, who is presiding over the construction of a two-story warehouse that will serve as a sobriety center for our fellow Houstonians who have a tad bit too much to drink.

Now, instead of arresting folks for public intoxication and hauling them off to the city jail, the police can drop them off at the city's sobriety center. The facility will cost the city about $1.5 million a year, as opposed to the $4-6 million a year it costs the city to operate the city jail.

It is estimated that most of the people arrested for public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor, are homeless. The sobriety center will move the city one step away from the policy of criminalizing homelessness.

It also brings a little bit of sanity to the situation. According to the penal code, it is against the law to be out in public and so intoxicated that you place yourself or others at risk. Most of the people arrested for public intoxication are sleeping at the time of their arrest. A good chunk of the other arrests for PI are of passengers in cars in which the driver is arrested for some other offense.

When the homeless are arrested for public intoxication they are booked into the city jail and taken before a municipal court judge the following day at which time they are offered a time served (or an extra night at the city's expense) and a complimentary conviction.

The problem of alcoholism and homelessness is not a story of criminal behavior. It's a story of a societal problem that we have done all we can to brush under the rug. Mayor Parker's embrace of the sobriety center is a step in the right direction.

Have you seen this meter?

You gotta hand it to Mayor Annise Parker. She, and her colleagues on City Council, have come up with a brilliant way to raise additional revenue for the city without raising taxes or cutting services. In fact, implementing the plan saves the city money on supplies, as well.

And just what is this new revenue stream you might ask? Not refilling the paper rolls in the electronic parking meters downtown.

 If you see this meter, remain calm. Don't try to apprehend it by yourself. Please call the authorities at once.

Just think about it. Someone puts their money into the machine (no record of that transaction, is there?) or slides their credit or debit card in the slot to pay to park. Then, instead of printing out a receipt with an expiration time on it, the machine just sits there and looks at you like you're a complete freaking moron.

Oh you can try putting a note on your dashboard to the effect that the machine ate your money but there's no guarantee the losers who patrol the streets looking for cars to ticket are going to pay any attention to it. And even if you used plastic to pay to park when you go to the Municipal Courthouse to fight the ticket the functionary sitting behind the desk will look at your bank statement and tell you that it doesn't show what time the charge was made.

The idea would appear to be to force folks to use the city parking app on their phones to pay for parking. The only problem there is that no receipt is generated. The meter maidens must then run your license plate to determine if you've paid to park - and if you have any outstanding tickets that might get your car booted.

Now I'm out $2.50 for parking with nothing to show for it.

Thank you, Mayor Parker.

The mayor's plan to rid downtown of the homeless

Well, if you can't figure out a way to resolve the homeless issue in Houston, the least you can do, Mayor Parker, is get those folks out of the way of everyone else. You know, out of sight, out of mind. The last thing you want are folks coming downtown for the various festivals in the spring to see homeless people wandering around. Might give those suburbanites the wrong idea and all.

What? You've already thought of that? You mean to tell me you've cooked up a plan to shut down the churches and charitable organizations that provide meals for the homeless?

As those guys in the Guinness commercial would say, "Brilliant!"

So let's get this straight. We're going to issue citations and hit these do-gooders with $2,000 fines if they don't get your permission before handing out the food?

Probably not to much lose with that plan. I doubt most of the homeless folks vote since you have to have an address to do that sort of thing. You figure that most of your liberal core followers will continue to drink the kool aid because you're a lesbian or because they can't be bothered to look at what you actually do rather then what you say.

There may be some citizens of our fair city who have something to say about that this afternoon at 1:30 at City Hall outside council chambers.

See also:

The proposed regulations (pp. 33-45)

Mayor wants to build new crime lab

Harris County already has a crime lab. It's called the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences. It was created out of the old medical examiner's office. They have a brand new building and a staff of anthropologists, forensic pathologists and lab techs in various forensic fields.

The City of Houston, on the other hand, only has the long discredited HPD Crime Lab.

But now Annise Parker wants a crime lab of her own. She wants to create an "independent" crime lab headed up by an assortment of political appointees to oversee the testing of evidence in criminal investigations. She'll need a building and a staff as well as a board of appointees fitting every possible demographic.

Mayor Parker wants someone from an Innocence Project-type group on the board. Council member Larry Green wants someone from the NAACP or LULAC. And, so we don't forget the wingnut crowd, Michael Sullivan wants representatives from law enforcement, so-called victims' rights groups and Parents of Murdered Children.

Excuse me, Mr. Sullivan, the crime lab's only customer will be law enforcement. They will provide the expert witnesses at trial. They will bend the truth any way they can to convince that jury that the defendant is guilty as charged.

Any crime lab should be independent of law enforcement. The testing of evidence should be an exercise in science, not politics. The only agenda the board running the lab should have is how to improve the science.

With the IFS already up and running, there is no need for the city to build its own crime lab. The city should contract with the IFS to handle any evidence testing for HPD. Running two crime labs would be a tremendous waste of resources. There are better uses for city money than duplicating the services the county already provides.

So, Mayor Parker, just let it go.

H/T Grits for Breakfast

City to evict occupiers

This is how the world ends
This is how the world ends
This is how the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper. 

"The Hollow Men" -- T.S. Eliot

The City of Houston has informed the Occupy Houston protesters that they must vacate downtown's Tranquility Park by dusk this evening.

Mayor Annise Parker claims the occupation has cost the city $287,268.00 in regular salary and $54,917.68 in overtime pay for police officers. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but those officers who were sent to keep an eye on the park for the last five months were already on the payroll and likely would have been given some other assignment but for the protest. And, it was the city's decision to try to intimidate the protesters by keeping police at the park around the clock.

I don't know what the protest has accomplished here in Houston. It made a big splash when the occupation began and again at the port arrests in December. The occupiers raised some awareness of the influence corporate interests wield in the political process but without a coherent message or ideology, the voices became muddled against the background.

The next couple of hours will tell whether the occupation will make one last splash in Houston.

Local pols show true colors ordering police to raid campsites

Earlier this month downtown Oakland resembled a Third World country in the midst of armed rebellion as police in riot gear attacked protesters with Occupy Oakland. This time around the scene was less chaotic as police carried out the wishes of Mayor Jean Quan.

Police descended upon Frank Ogawa Plaza at 5:00 a.m. and two hours later the park was cleared of protesters.



Mayors who tried to portray themselves as supporters of the protests against the corporate takeover of the US government have shown their true colors as they carry out the wishes of their corporate masters. In Portland, Oregon, Mayor Sam Adams ordered police to clear two parks over the weekend.

Police were also called out to clear out campsites in both Salt Lake City and Denver.

It's probably a safe bet that local politicians didn't expect the Occupy! movement to have any legs. They figured that a few college kids and hippies would camp out for a couple of days and then go back home. They weren't counting on protesters camping out for a month or longer.

Those in power know all too well that the longer folks see protesters camping out in cities across the country, the more ordinary people will gravitate to the protests. The longer the campsites are allowed to exist near political and financial centers across the country, the more folks will be reminded of just where the true axis of power in this country lies.

The thought process is that once the protests are out of sight, the message will be out of the minds of the populace. That may, ultimately, be true. However, what began as a protest in New York City about the influence of Wall Street in political and economic policy, has grown into a movement that stretches across this nation.

A sea change may very well be underway as young people are seeing the effects that our economic policy has had on their generation. Unemployment is higher than it's been in a very long time. Economic growth has slowed to a trickle. Jobs are being eliminated at home and exported abroad. The cost of getting a college education has increased at a rate far exceeding inflation. Homes are being foreclosed on at rates not seen since the Great Depression. And while Rome burns, the corporate bosses are rolling in cash.

At some point Mayor Annise Parker is going to turn on the protesters camped out across the street from City Hall. At some point she will send in the police with orders to clear the park. She used the movement as long as it served her purpose of getting re-elected. Now the the election in the background, the time is coming for the crackdown in Houston.

You see, Mayor Parker knows that there are more people in Houston that sympathize with the protesters than support corporate greed, but she also knows that there is far more money to be raised by from corporate coffers downtown.

It's just a matter of time.

UPDATE:

Overnight police in New York cleared Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park. Police arrived at the encampment at about 1am and ordered protesters to take their belongings and leave the park. Reports indicate that over 70 protesters were arrested in the raid.

Reporters were not allowed in the park as police allegedly used pepper spray and excessive force to remove protesters.

Update: Houston, occupied

Dear Media and Others; 

The peaceful OccupyHouston demonstrators present at Eleanor Tinsley Park have just been informed by the Houston Police that they must remove their tents and lean-tos that keep them out of the rain and intense heat so that they may continue to peacefully protest and exert their Constitutional rights to assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances and to Freedom of Speech and Expression.  It is possible that the police officer's order alone violates these rights as it has put a chill upon them.  Notice has been sent (see below) to the Mayor and City Council. 

Sincerely,
Randall L. Kallinen

Oh, Mayor Parker, how incredibly short-sighted of you. A group of young people are out exercising their most basic of constitutional rights and you're more concerned about tents in Buffalo Bayou Park. 

I guess if the tents and lean-tos were sponsored by the various oil, energy, financial and law firms downtown it'd be okay. We could just call it the ExxonMobilChevronTexacoReliantCenterpointDynegyWellsFargoJPMorganChaseBakerBottsFulbrightGuiliani Occupation of Houston, charge $5 for admission and $10 for 20 tickets redeemable for turkey legs, funnel cakes or sausage on a stick and we'd be in business.

If you want to draw attention to the protest, Mayor Parker, what better way than to send the stormtroopers police into the park to remove the tents and protesters. Do you really think that would end it? Do you not think that such action might draw out more supporters?

The mayor doesn't seem to care that the Chief of Police is putting one of men responsible for trying to cover up another officer's DWI, in charge of the DWI task force, but, put a tent in a park and she's all over that like white on rice.

*****

To: atlarge1 <atlarge1@houstontx.gov>; atlarge2 <atlarge2@houstontx.gov>; atlarge3 <atlarge3@houstontx.gov>; atlarge4 <atlarge4@houstontx.gov>; atlarge5 <atlarge5@houstontx.gov>; districta <districta@houstontx.gov>; districtb <districtb@houstontx.gov>; districtc <districtc@houstontx.gov>; districtd <districtd@houstontx.gov>; districte <districte@houstontx.gov>; districtf <districtf@houstontx.gov>; districtg <districtg@houstontx.gov>; districth <districth@houstontx.gov>; districti <districti@houstontx.gov>; mayor <mayor@houstontx.gov>; 

Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2011 2:27 pm  

Subject: URGENT NOTICE Houston Police Plan To Violate First Amendment Now 

Dear Mayor Parker and Councilmembers, The peaceful demonstrators present at Eleanor Tinsley Park have been informed by the Houston Police that they must remove their tents and lean-tos that keep them out of the rain and intense heat so that they may continue to peacefully protest and exert their Constitutional rights to assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances and to Freedom of Speech and Expression.  It is possible that the police officer's order alone violates these rights as it has put a chill upon them.  Please inform your Houston City police employees to inform the peaceful protestors that they do not have remove their structures immediately.  Thank you.    Sincerely,

Randall L. Kallinen

*****
Update:

According to this account from the Houston Chronicle, protesters have taken down the tents.

Occupy Houston protesters at Eleanor Tinsley Park have taken down their tents after being told they violate a city ordinance, an attorney for the group said Monday afternoon.

Police notified participants about 1 p.m. that the tents needed to come down, said Burke Moore. The group did not have the required permits needed to erect the tents, Moore said.

Protesters were allowed the use the tents on Sunday, for protection from the rain, participants said. The weather has since cleared up.

Police this afternoon spoke with Moore about dismantling the tents, he said. The attorney said the group, as a whole, decided to comply. One person did not want to comply, but the group acts by consensus, Moore added.

A more efficient way to ration water use

To combat the lack of rainfall in Houston, Mayor Annise Parker has decided that it's the right time to ration water use. As of last week half the city can water their yards on Sunday and Thursday and the other half can water on Wednesday and Saturday.

But is that the best way to handle the situation? Rationing forces people to do things at times when they wouldn't ordinarily do them. It is an inefficient use of resources and will cost more money to try to enforce. After all, someone has to drive around and cite people.

It also treats all yards the same. Some yards are big, some are small. Some have elaborate landscaping and some have none. Some have automatic irrigation systems and some have hoses and sprinklers. Some have lots of grass and some have decks and pools. Some yards are shaded better than others.

A more efficient mode of rationing the use of water would be to raise the marginal cost of each additional gallon used. Determine what the average water usage for a house in Houston is during a typical (that is, when it actually rains) month and raise the price of each additional unit of water above that figure.

That way those who need additional water can get it and those who don't need it aren't affected. A homeowner could look at the cost of watering his yard and determine whether or not the benefit of watering is worth the extra cost.

Such a scheme wouldn't require sending folks around in city-owned cars to write citations to citizens trying to keep their yards from turning brown. Such a scheme would allow for the more efficient use of water during drought conditions.

Of course, since it makes sense, it'll never happen.

Flipping-flopping the night away

Houston Mayor Annise Parker flipping and flopping about what to do with the red light cameras. 

First she cut them off. Then, faced with breach of contract, she turned them back on. Now, with an election approaching she's asking City Council to turn them off.

Classic politics, that is. If the city shuts them down and ends up writing a check to ATS, Mayor Parker can blame City Council. If the city leaves the cameras up and running, she can tell the voters that she wanted to turn them off but City Council wouldn't listen.

Come on, Mayor Parker, go down to the Medical Center and get a spine replacement. Try being a leader for once.

Mayor Parker to voters: "Screw you!"

In response to residents who voted to get rid of red light cameras, Houston Mayor Annise Parker announced that the cameras will being generating citations at 12:01am on Sunday. In doing so, Mayor Parker is giving residents the middle finger because she's more concerned about a contract with an out-of-state vendor than she is with the will of the voters in Houston.

It gets even worse, however. Police Chief Charles McClelland told the Houston Chronicle that the city would put up more cameras in the future. This despite a study showing that intersections with cameras saw an increase in the number of accidents after the cameras were installed.

Here's hoping that voters will remember how the mayor disregarded their decision on red light cameras come November.

Damn the public, full steam ahead!

So much for the will of the voters. Mayor Annise Parker has announced that the red light cameras are being turned back on.

Of course the mayor is wringing her hands because the public made its opinion of the cameras known and she certainly doesn't want to upset the very people she'll be asking to re-elect her in November. She seems quite upset about having to turn the cameras back on and she was very happy to let us know that the city is asking the court for permission to appeal its ruling on the legality of the referendum.

And we all know the city had nothing at all to do with ATS' claim that the referendum was not authorized by law. We know the city attorney would never have lain in bed with ATS to figure out a way to get around the vote.

This is nothing but a farce. They city never wanted to turn the cameras off in the first place. The entire federal lawsuit with ATS was nothing but a sham from the beginning. The legality of the referendum had nothing to do with whether the city was in breach of its contract.

Mayor Parker and her buddy, David Feldman, orchestrated this charade in order to defy the voters and still say the matter was out of their hands.

Let's just hope that in November voters in Houston are more concerned about what a candidate will do in office than with how many boxes he or she can check off on a census form.

Houston Motion to Certify Permissive Interlocutory Appeal

Odds and ends

Perry signs bill compensating Anthony Graves

Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill on Tuesday authorizing the state to pay Anthony Graves $1.4 million in compensation for spending 18 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. In 2006, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Graves' conviction. As there was no finding of actual innocence, the State Comptroller refused to compensate Mr. Graves for his years behind bars.

I guess, Ms. Combs, that it's somehow Mr. Graves' fault that he was arrested, charged and convicted despite the prosecutor's knowledge that the state's star witness recanted the night before trial.

God knows the state has more important things to spend money on -- such as the more than $10,000 a month the state is spending for the house the fair-haired one is renting while the Governor's Mansion is renovated.

Is ATS blackmailing the City of Houston?

ATS, the operator of the red light cameras in Houston, has issued a letter to the city saying that all will be forgiven if the city turns the cameras back on by August 1. If the city chooses to honor the will of the voters, the city may be on the hook for up to $20 million for breach of contract.

The city attorney, David Feldman, made the odd statement that statistics indicate an increase in accidents at intersections since the cameras were turned off after last November's referendum. Of course, Mr. Feldman has never let the facts get in the way of his pronouncements.

We're about to see where Mayor Annise Parker stands when she must decide between money and the will of the populace. I'm not holding my breath.

The return of the red light camera?

On Friday, US District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled that last November's ballot initiative to repeal Houston's red light camera ordinance was invalid.

The court held that the referendum was held after the time limit to repeal city ordinances had expired.

Mayor Annise Parker said she will consult with her lapdog, city attorney David Feldman, about the city's next move. With budget shortfalls to deal with, it's a pretty good bet that the city is going to do everything it can to get the cameras rolling once again.

“We lost on the issue of the validity of the charter amendment, so what the court is saying, okay city, now decide what you’re going to do with the contract. We need to decide how we’re going to move forward, and what position we’re going to take with the contract in light of the fact he’s declared the charter amendment invalid.’’ -- David Feldman

Judge Hughes' ruling does raise a question or two. First, if the ballot initiative was invalid because the time for repealing the ordinance had passed, why did election officials certify the initiative on the ballot?  If this is an argument the city is raising for the first time, why didn't city officials challenge the placement of the initiative on the ballot last November? Why was a federal court issuing a ruling regarding a city ordinance?

I understand why the matter was in federal court. ATS, the manufacturer of the red light camera system was suing the City of Houston for breach of contract over the city's cancellation of the contract as a result of the referendum. It would appear that there was never an adversarial relationship between the company and the city and that the purpose of the litigation was to void the result of the referendum.

The question still remains however? Why was Judge Hughes making a ruling about a local ballot initiative? The only question before the court was whether the city had breached its contract with ATS - not why the city cancelled the contract. The reason behind the city's decision had nothing to do with whether or not the city breached any contract.

Judge Hughes had no reason to enter any ruling regarding the ballot initiative. By doing so he involved himself in a dispute that is a local, not a federal, matter.

Confronting police brutality

Tuesday was the day to speak out against police brutality at the weekly meeting of the Houston city council. As I was scheduled to appear in court down on the island, I was unable to attend the meeting. My colleague, Robert Fickman, past president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, was on hand, however, and provides us with this guest post.

I attended today's City Council Meeting along with my officemate Vivian King. Altogether I am sorry to report that the meeting left me largely disappointed. However, my resolve to fight police brutality has never been stronger. 

First,  I had called upon our fellow members of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association to attend. I thought that some of our 500 plus members would want to join us in speaking out against police brutality. 

I was mistaken. Vivian and I were the only two members of the Defense Bar there.

 I have worked for a number of years to build HCCLA and  the voice of the defense bar. I am disappointed  that some of our leaders  think it's not our place to speak out against police  brutality.  Additionally, the membership's  apathy toward police brutality is also disappointing. Our clients are the victims of the brutality. HCCLA, in my opinion, is currently adrift, rudderless,  which makes me quite angry. 

There  was a large turnout at City Hall. Those, like myself, who came to speak out against police brutality were made to wait until more important topics like historic preservation and sewers were discussed. After an hour or so they finally got to us.  Reverends Dixon and Coffield were quite forceful in their presentations. Minister Muhammed was eloquent and warned that if the City did not take serious steps to end police brutality the community reaction would only get worse. Each of these men and others presented compelling arguments urging the city to take action. Quanell X was sick an unable to attend. His voice was missed. 

Unfortunately, with few exceptions mostly what we heard from Council was semi- patronizing lip service and statements about how they had done all they could do. Council Members Bradford and Jones seemed to be the only two on Council who were in touch with the community outrage. Curiously Councilwoman Wanda Adams spent much of the meeting, posturing  on her desk phone.

I spoke. I told the Mayor and Council that the Harris County District Attorney's Office were largely responsible for the problem. I pointed out that  except for rare occasion the District Attorney's Office had failed for three decades to prosecute police brutality. I urged the Mayor to contact the Attorney General of the United States and ask him to form a special task force to investigate and prosecute police brutality in Houston.

In response to my call for federal intervention,  City Attorney David Feldman pointed out that the City had already contacted the Justice Dept regarding the Holley case and  they were taking a wait and see position. I  think they  missed my point. I was not speaking about the Holley case. I was speaking about  all police brutality cases in Houston. Having pointed out the historic failings of the DA's Office on these cases, I was calling on the Mayor to call on the feds to form a task force to handle all police brutality cases in Houston. I pointed out that it took the power of the federal government to end segregation, and I believed it would take the power of the federal government to end police brutality. 

I intend to follow up with my own letters. HCCLA's leadership, members, and Council may choose to stick their collective heads in the dirt while our community suffers daily police abuse; I will not. I will not be silent on the issue of police brutality. We need strong deterrents and punishments to stop the abuse.  The longstanding history of murderous rogue cops needs to end on Our Watch. 

I don't know what the solution is. A civilian review board sounds nice - but in reality, do they really do any good? The boards tend to be made up of politically-connected folks who don't really want to go out on a limb. Even if you give the board subpoena power, what would you accomplish? Would the board be tasked with seeking out the truth - and forgoing criminal prosecution? Would the board's job be to uncover evidence and turn it over the the DA's office? Would members of the board have any idea what they were doing?

A "rogue" grand jury that was interested in investigating complaints of police brutality might be the best opportunity to bring these matters to light. Of course, since the Harris County DA's Office would then be in charge of any criminal prosecutions, it's very likely that nothing would change under that scenario. The DA's Office has shown its complete indifference toward police brutality over the years. The last thing that Ms. Lykos wants is for those sitting on jury panels to realize what happens to a person when they've pissed off a cop.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

I sat on a panel at a community meeting on police brutality on Tuesday night and listened as dozens of folks spoke of incidents in which they or their loved ones were the victims of police intimidation or brutality. One of the speakers was Janie Torres, the youngest sister of Jose Campos Torres, who was beaten by the police and then dumped into Buffalo Bayou in handcuffs back in 1977.

We heard from a young man who was working at a local grocery store late one night when the police made a traffic stop. He stopped to watch. Apparently the officer didn't appreciate someone watching him and he approached the young man -- who was wearing his work clothes. He told the young man he looked suspicious (he was sweeping around the gas pumps). He searched the young man's car - and even put a drug dog in the car - looking for anything he could use to arrest him. After trashing the car he escorted the young man inside the store and continued to harass him. The young man told the officer he had a concealed handgun license and when the officer asked for the gun, the young man pointed to his bag. The officer then took the gun and pressed it to his head before leaving.

We heard from a mother whose 52 year-old son suffered from a mental disorder. She called 911 while he was in the midst of a psychotic episode expecting a crisis intervention team to respond. The police came instead. Her son was tased 18 times before he was handcuffed and beaten. When it was all over, her son was dead. The officers had broken his neck while beating him.

Another woman told us of how her daughter, who also suffered from a mental disorder, was killed by the police as she walked down the street. Again, instead of a crisis intervention team, five patrol cars responded to the call. She was shot at close range. The official story? She had a gun. There was no gun.

We also heard from a mother whose son was involved in a car with HPD officers in 1998. When he was finally stopped, seven officers surrounded his truck and fired more than 50 rounds into the cab. She found out about the shooting while watching the news. When she asked the department what happened, no one would speak to her.

From Jose Campos Torres to Randall Webster to Ida Delaney - police brutality has been a way of life in this city for a very long time. The fact that Chad Holley was beaten by the police isn't new. The fact that there was  a video of the assault on this young man is.

The Harris County District Attorney's Office seems to think that all they can do is charge the officers involved with misdemeanor assaults. I would suggest that Ms. Lykos open up her copy of the penal code and look at Chapter 22:

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Section 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if the offense is committed:
(1) by a public servant acting under color of the servant's office or employment;
(2) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or
(3) in retaliation against or on account of the service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or person who has reported the occurrence of a crime.
(c) The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant.

Mr. Holley suffered neurological damage to his face as a result of the beating. Mr. Holley was struck by a patrol car. The officers were armed. I'm curious to know if the officer who thought it was a good idea to kick Mr. Holley repeatedly was wearing steel-toed boots.

If the state wants to allege that a car is a deadly weapon in an intoxication manslaughter case, why isn't the patrol car considered a deadly weapon in this case? You can believe that if a citizen were accused of assaulting another and he was carrying a gun, he would be charged with aggravated assault -- whether or not he used the gun. But if an officer commits an assault while carrying a weapon the DA's Office just turns a blind eye, holds up their hands and claims they did all they could do.

The old saw is that the DA could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted. Since the state is the party presenting cases to the grand jury, the state decides how hard to push a case. If the DA wants a case to go away -- just present it to the grand jury and let them know the DA doesn't care if the case is indicted. Then, when the grand jury no-bills it, the DA can tell the public that she had nothing to do with the case being dismissed. Marc Brown, who presides over the 180th Judicial District Court, presented the Holley case to a grand jury. The officers were charged with misdemeanor assaults. This is the same Marc Brown who campaigned that he had integrity and was tough.

When this issue of police brutality is raised at a city council meeting, the mayor, Annise Parker, waves her hand and tells the council and the audience that a public meeting is not the correct forum to discuss police brutality. What then, Ms. Parker, is the correct forum? We all know it happens. Until we acknowledge that fact, nothing will be done to stop it.

As Robert Muhammad told the crowd "Police chiefs, mayors and district attorneys come and go, but the problem persists."

See also:

"Houston residents outraged over videos of police brutality," Reuters (Feb. 15, 2011)
"Town hall meeting on HPD violence draws hundreds," Houston Chronicle (Feb. 16, 2011)

Not so fast with that camera removal, boys

Oh, and you only thought the pesky little matter of the red light cameras in Houston was done with the city's decision to take them down.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes injected himself into the mix when he signed an injunction halting the removal of the cameras until the court rules on the validity of the referendum in which voters said no to the continued use of the cameras.

The litigation before the court seems to have little actual relevance as both the City of Houston (the plaintiff) and ATS (the defendant) are seeking to void the referendum.

The only real issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the city is in breach of its contract with ATS. If following the will of the populace means that the city is in breach of the contract, then shame on the people who obligated the city in the first place. If that be the case then Mayor Parker needs to negotiate a termination of the contract with ACS so that everyone can go about their merry way. Regardless of whether the vote means the city is in breach, the cameras need to come down.

Maybe the contract excuses noncompliance as the result of an Act of God. Since the GOP and their religious minions swept the day in Harris County, I think the city might just have an argument that its cancellation of the contract isn't a breach.

Taking the cameras down

City Hall has decided to listen to the voters. At 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 15, 2010, the red light cameras will come down in Houston.

The City of Houston abruptly changed course from earlier pronouncements that it would take up to 120 days to cancel the contract and made the surprise announcement late Friday. ATS, the Arizona company hired by the city to install the cameras is looking for some type of a settlement with the city but activists who campaigned against the cameras are opposed to any type of settlement with the company.

Mayor Annise Parker has announced that removing the cameras will cost the Houston Police Department approximately $10 million annually -- pretty much an admission that the red light camera program was nothing more than a thinly veiled user tax for motorists who drive within the city limits.

Score one for the people.

The voters have spoken, but will the city listen?

Y'all just thought that voting against red light cameras in Houston would get rid of them, didn't you? Nevermind that 53% of the voters on Tuesday gave a thumbs-down to the city's latest user tax. Now city officials are doing whatever they can to keep the cameras up despite the vote.

Citing the cost of breaking the contract, Houston City Attorney Dave Feldman said the city first has to canvass the vote and then give notice to ATS, the Arizona company who runs the program. Mr. Feldman also said that the city must honor the 120-day termination notice in the contract before taking the cameras down in order to avoid termination fees and possible litigation.

Um, excuse me, arrogant city officials, the voters have spoken and the message was loud and clear: the cameras need to come down. As Houston ticket attorney Paul Kubosh noted, if the city can't afford the termination fee, then the people who signed the contract should be fired. Former city attorney Benjamin Hall said the city had no business keeping the cameras up since the voters made their preference known.

The red light cameras were a boondoggle from the beginning and will continue to be until city officials do what they've been told to do. Mr. Feldman and everyone else down at City Hall need to realize that they aren't the bosses -- they are the employees who serve at the will of the populace.

Mayor Parker, your bosses have spoken. Take the cameras down.

Collapsing under its own weight

The City of Houston Municipal Courts handled 1.2 million cases in 2009. Of those 1.2 million cases, defendants requested jury trials in 415,297 of them. The Houston Chronicle reported that there were 415,297 jury trials at 1400 Lubbock Street last year; Houston's "leading information source" was wrong. There are seven municipal courts that handle jury trials. In those seven courts, one case, at most, will go to trial each afternoon. Not taking holidays into account, there are approximately 260 working days in a year. If we are to believe the number reported, that means each of those seven courts conducted an average of 228 jury trials a day, every weekday, for the entire year.

The number reported by the Houston Chronicle is not the number of jury trials conducted, but, instead, the number of cases set on the courts' jury trial dockets. That means each court averaged approximately 228 cases on its docket each day.

And with our city attorney doing his best to make Governor Perry look like a genius and declaring that police officers needn't bother with showing up at 8:00 a.m. and making folks sit around the courthouse all day long, the Municipal Courthouse will soon collapse under its own weight.

Now just imagine what would happen if none of those 228 cases plead out during the morning session and that every defendant in that courtroom demanded a jury trial. Imagine 227 cases having to be reset in every court every day. Sure, the new policy is ridiculous and it attempts to coerce pleas by making people sit in a courtroom all day long but to watch the entire system come crashing down is priceless.

Now if you are offended by David Feldman's latest dumb idea and think that it's just plain wrong that you are expected to be in court at the time shown on your summons but that the police can show up whenever they damn well please, then give your mayor and city councilmembers a piece of your mind:

Mayor Annise Parker
(832) 393-0800 or (832) 393-1013

Brenda Stardig
(832) 393-3010

Jarvis Jordan
(832) 393-3009

Anne Clutterbuck
(832) 393-3004

Wanda Adams
(832) 393-3001

Mike Sullivan
(832) 393-3008

Al Hoang
(832) 393-3002

Oliver Pennington
(832) 393-3007

Ed Gonzalez
(832) 393-3003

James Rodriguez
(832) 393-3011

Stephen Costello
(832) 393-3014

Sue Lovell
(832) 393-3013

Melissa Noriega
(832) 393-3005

Clarence Bradford
(832) 393-3012

Jolanda Jones
(832) 393-3006

You might even want to drop Mr. Feldman a line at david.feldman@houstontx.gov.