Austinist: AT&T + $$$ = UT EE&CC

slick

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:30:27 -0600

From today's San Antonio Express News: Now some are questioning the motives of at least one key legislator: bill author Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, who could stand to personally benefit from the Hegar amendment if the bill becomes law. Woolley owns a business, Houston Armature Works Inc. on Houston's Harrisburg Boulevard, where Houston Metro is planning to construct a four-mile rapid transit extension. It's "a huge project" expected to take three years to complete, said agency spokeswoman Sandra Salazar. Access to businesses along Harrisburg Boulevard is sure to be an issue during construction and the Hegar amendment specifically addresses issues of access during road projects. It would allow property owners to sue for "diminished access" to their property because of new roads or road construction. Current law requires property owners to show "material or substantial damages" before seeking compensation for it in the courts. Woolley insists she carried the Hegar amendment not because she was philosophically wedded to it but because she feared she did not have sufficient time, in the last days of the session, to get a compromise in committee. She vehemently denied she had her own interests in mind when she pushed through HB 2006. "This is a statewide bill that affects every property owner," she said. Asked whether she could benefit from the Hegar amendment, she said: "Maybe, maybe not." Perry's spokesman, who said Woolley refused to strip the Hegar amendment from her bill even though the governor warned her that he might veto the whole bill, took a hard line. "The governor does not believe that anyone in public office should use that office to benefit themselves," Black said. Asked if the governor believed Woolley had used her office to do that, Black replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck."

Scooby

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:42:57 -0600

Gov. Goodhair has demonstrated that he doesn't give a damn about conflicts of interest. If the bill is doomed, it isn't because of that. "Integrity in public process" and "Texas Legislature" are pretty much mutually exclusive. I'm not so picky when it comes to the gov't limiting its own power- especially the power to steal property from one private party and give it over to another.

slick

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:49:53 -0600

Scooby, the bill is toast primarily because it personally benefits the House sponsor, Beverley Woolley of Houston, Craddick's right hand-gal who owns a business threatened with diminished access, the specific focus of the provision she placed in the bill. Again, if you think the end result justifies the participation of those with direct and substantial conflicts of interest, then there's not much I can do to convince you of the need for integity in the public process.

pd

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:06:14 -0600

LAS MANITAS! LAS MANITAS! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF LAS MANITAS!

Scooby

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:09:01 -0600

Even if, in the absence of the family connection/ special treatment, it's the right thing to do? The legislation was bad only in it's limited scope. Hopefully, Perry won't veto a bill passed with 90+% majorities in both houses, that protects the rest of the state from some of the worse forms of eminent domain abuse.

slick

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:58:35 -0600

I've enjoyed reading your rationalizations of nepotism and conflicts of interest. It doesn't matter that you think the result is to your liking, or that it was a knee-jerk reaction to the rhetoric generated by Kelo -- it's just flat out wrong to do sweetheart deals for individual properties of family members.

native austinite

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:10:34 -0600

"It would be nice if the lege had gone a little farther, spreading the love to all property owners, not just those with a cousin in the lege." Call your governor. He's threatening to veto a bill (HB 2006) that does exactly that right now.

Patrick C.

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:30:41 -0600

There was indeed serious community involvement at the time, and really, who cares how it went down? It stayed, everybody was happy, nobody got hurt. Fine with me. As a former Dobie resident Lord knows I appreciate the delicious, cheap, unhealthy late night food Player's is so very talented at serving.

pd

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:39:07 -0600

Admittedly, the Player's situation ended in nepotism, but I went to school at UT (and ate at Player's frequently) enough to know that there was serious community involvement at the time.

Scooby

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:30:27 -0600

It didn't hurt that the Player's affair happened on the heels of the Kelo decision. The uproar over that made a blocking questionable use of eminent domain a pretty easy call. It would be nice if the lege had gone a little farther, spreading the love to all property owners, not just those with a cousin in the lege.

slick

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:39:05 -0600

Let's be honest about the Player's situation -- they had a special provision loaded into an eminent domain bill in the 2005 legislative session to protect their property, and only their property. This was done by a state representative from far South Texas who is related to the owner of Players. This was not a grassroots or citizens effort, and Player's fighting for it's life consisted of whispering in a well-connected relatives ear.

native austinite

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:52:07 -0600

Player's "fought for its life"??? Well, if you mean "turned down enough money to relocate the restaurant and still clear over a million dollars in profit" then I guess you could be right.

Scooby

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:50:28 -0600

Taco Bell wasn't in the Union at the end of the 80s when I got there. I had friends that worked in the Union cafeteria in the early 90s- no chain restaurants were there then. Didn't the fast food chains move in around the mid-90s?

Scooby

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:48:35 -0600

Butter Woman

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:43:45 -0600

I will take some of the blame for this. I went to UT in the 1980s (yes, dinosaurs still walked the earth). It was during those innocent times that fast food first appeared in the Union. I picketed against Taco Bell. If only I had been able to stop this horrible trend. Sigh.

Grape Ape

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:24:16 -0600

is that Tropicana high pulp or medium?

kenneth

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:44:06 -0600

Who cares what they name it? It's a conference center, not a chemistry lab. At least it's an attractive building. I was worried when they first announced the plans that it was going to be something monstrous like the Dobie.

RoyJanik

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:18:24 -0600

I'm just looking forward to the day when they finally rename the Texas Longhorns the Tropicana Pure Premium Horns.

TheMilkman

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:10:05 -0600

How much for branding on diplomas? The University of Texas, in conjunction with KFC, McDonalds, Costco, and Starbucks, hereby certifies that Sammy Student has met all educational requirements in his area of study. Congratulations! Would you like to supersize your degree and stay for a graduate school program?