Posted on 12/02/2002 10:34:56 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Someone who operates the Houston Chronicle website must have had a terrible day on November 20. What the Chronicle described in a notice intended to cover its tracks as an "internal document" entitled "A Houston odyssey: DeLay, Lanier and light rail" appeared briefly in the editorials section on the newspaper's website beginning late in the evening on November 20.
Houston's daily newspaper quickly removed the "internal document" upon its discovery and posted a brief correction to the page, though not before the document was publicly accessible for at least several hours. According to the retraction, "An internal Houston Chronicle document was mistakenly posted to the editorial/opinion area of the Web site early Thursday morning." The message went on to apologize for the "confusion" it may have caused, yet said nothing of the document's contents.
The "internal document," which appears to be a memorandum to the paper's editors and editorial writers from one of their own, proposes that the Chronicle Editorial Board essentially embark on a year-long editorial campaign to help pass an as-of-yet not publicly announced November 2003 referendum giving Metro a blank check to expand light rail throughout the Houston area.
The memo begins, "I propose a series of editorials, editorial cartoons and Sounding Board columns leading up to the rail referendum." Each is to have "this specific objective: Continuing our long standing efforts to make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here." The author, who is presumably involved in some capacity with the editorial page, suggests of this effort that "There isn't a more critical issue on the horizon."
The memo continues with the suggestion that news stories could be used to accompany the Editorial Board's opinion pieces. "I suggest that [the editorials] could be built upon and informed by a news-feature package with an equally specific focus," writes the unnamed Chronicle official. The main purpose of these "news-features" would be to "inform" readers of a supposed anti-rail conspiracy in Houston. In other words, expect the Chronicle's radical pro-rail editorial opinions to seep over into their news coverage as the Chronicle intentionally engages in the art of yellow journalism so famously associated with the founder of their parent company, William Randolph Hearst.
According to the document's author, a virtual conspiracy of power comparable to the "Chinatown" organized crime epidemic decades ago in Los Angeles revolves around highway construction in Houston. "Since World War II, Houston's currency has bee (sic) concrete," reads the memo, "millions of cubic yards poured for freeways."
The document then outlines the nature of this supposed conspiracy by bullet point with the implication that each should be part of the editorial and "news- feature" package of political propaganda that will be promoted through the paper. The chief architects of the conspiracy are identified as former Mayor Bob Lanier and Congressman Tom DeLay. The Texas Public Policy Foundation is also fingered and the memo pledges to expose each of them.
For example, the memo describes Lanier as the "public kingmaker" for all who seek to be elected in Houston and implies that he uses his fundraising prowess to leverage his support in exchange for candidates agreeing to oppose rail. Those who seek political office in Houston, the document asserts, pass through "Lanier's den" and "kiss the great man's ring and bid for his approval." Even the former mayor's wife is not spared as the author proposes for a story "Elyse Lanier: From jewelry salesperson to Houston political insider."
With DeLay, the memo takes the Chronicle's usual obsessive slash-and-burn approach of smearing the Congressman. DeLay has been the target of some two dozen vitriolic editorial attacks by the Chronicle Editorial Board and its columnists over the last two years, most of them related to his positions on rail. If the "internal document" is any indication, readers should expect more of it with greater intensity.
The memo calls for an investigation of DeLay's rise to seniority in Congress, the topic being "How it come about (sic) and . . . how it was funded (by the highway lobby)." Other topics include supposed disputes between DeLay and mayors in Fort Bend County and, ultimately, the "DeLay-Lanier relationship" in politics and in any campaign against the Metro spending referendum, described in the document as "Ground zero for November."
The latter part of the memo strays off into some seemingly unrelated questions with a unifying disdain of highway and road construction. It calls for an investigative story about why the developers of what is now the Southwest Freeway built it to go southwest instead of simply west. Another bullet point calls for investigation of frontage roads on Texas interstates. The story, it is said, should as why we have them "in the first place," why Sam Rayburn included them in the Interstate Highway Act, and "At whose bidding?"
The overall implication is that frontage roads encourage development along highways, which the memo implies is somehow a bad thing. It is unclear what this has to do with any objective consideration of light rail, but that does not seem to be the Chronicle's interest. Instead, they seem motivated by a radical anti-road agenda commonly known as "Smart Growth."
As always, there are several serious problems with the conspiracy theory outlined in the memo, none of which the memo pauses to consider. First, Lanier's hand-picked successor Mayor Lee Brown is a strong supporter of light rail, debunking the notion that he somehow has continually wielded his power to sabotage rail in Houston. Also, while Lanier's opposition to rail did help vault him to victory over Kathy Whitmire, Lanier has shown little interest in the rail issue one way or another since leaving office. He certainly did not publicly oppose the Main Street rail referendum in November 2001 and he did not back Orlando Sanchez, the only anti-rail candidate in the last mayoral election. Yet, the memo focuses more on Lanier than any other figure, even DeLay who the Chronicle Editorial Board has long despised.
Another auxiliary participant in the supposed conspiracy is identified indirectly as a "San Antonio-based think tank doing the the (sic) research to discredit rail." The reference is to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which has extensively researched transportation policy in Texas and published studies showing that light rail is not an efficient or cost-effective option in cities as spread out as Houston. Is there something sinister about a think tank consistently opposing light rail because their studies show it does not work? While much has been written about the TPPF's chief benefactor Dr. James Leininger, no one has alleged that this inventor of medical equipment and owner of the Promised Land Dairy has any financial interest in Houston's transportation policy. These facts suggest that a Chronicle "investigation" of this group would amount to nothing more than an attack on a source whose facts and conclusions they cannot refute on their own merits.
As for the highway construction firms that are supposedly spooked by rail, their financial support was nowhere to be found in the under-funded referendum to kill the Main Street project last November. While one can argue the limited scope of the project was not enough to stimulate their interest, everyone recognizes it is the critical and long sought after camel's nose under the tent for rail in Houston.
The truth is that those in the highway construction business have little to worry about because the average new light rail line in the United States carries barely 20 percent of the volume of a single freeway / motorway lane, according to transit expert Wendell Cox. This statistic and a wealth of other evidence showing light rail has only a marginal effect on traffic congestion can be found at Cox's website, publicpurpose.com.
What is most disturbing about this in-house document outlining the Chronicle's coverage of light rail over the coming year may be what was not included. In addition to the omission of obvious flaws in their conspiracy theory, the missive was silent on whether the motives or activities of pro-rail entities would be similarly scrutinized. If the Chronicle made any pretense about being an equal opportunity investigator, they would certainly want to ask whether METRO has a motive to expand its own budget through rail and what contractors and consultants will benefit from rail construction.
In sum, the inadvertently posted memo constitutes an announcement from the Chronicle that they have no intention of being fair or objective in what promises to be a year-long pro-rail propaganda campaign clothed in a garb of journalism by this monopoly newspaper. Pro-rail activism began on the editorial page and in a John Williams political article only days after the inadvertent posting, suggesting the memo was indeed a preview of what we can expect from now until November. However, thanks to a fortuitous programming mistake, the people of Houston are now on notice that the Chronicle's coverage will be conspiratorial pro-rail propaganda, not objective analysis.
Although the memo has been removed from their site, you may find a copy of it here:
Http://www.houstonreview.com/1102/chroniclememo.htm
Well, neither is "transit expert Wendell Cox" fair or objective.
Looks like Houston is in for a blast of propaganda from both sides of the issue.
That's good, I'm glad the Chronicle has taken the opposite position. Stir the pot and see what floats and what sinks.
I think you miss a key distinction. Wendell Cox isn't masquerading around as a newspaper or claiming to be a news reporter.
That's the thing you don't understand about the Houston Chronicle. They don't do real dirt digging. They do political smears and character assassinations to promote a left wing agenda. Their hatred of Tom DeLay is legendary in the Houston area. They've run an editorial condemning him every two or three weeks for the last three years. None of it has any substance to it. None of it contains any real dirt on DeLay. It's all the same old story - "Tom DeLay's a right wing conservative christian extremist who hates light rail and progress." They've been alleging that it has to do with some tie he has to highway contracters for years, but not once have they ever given any specifics. It's all propaganda smear attacks.
If its superficial, then its easy to refute.
If there's any substance, let 'em go at it.
There's plenty of opportunity for corruption on any construction project of this nature,
it doesn't much matter whether its highway or light-rail,
both require awarding of construction contracts,
both require land acquisition, (perhaps from "speculators" with inside connections)
Let 'em report what they have to report, judge the validity of the dirt after it's published.
Sounds like a great idea, if the "info" is true, and if both sides of an issue are being represented.
Do you pretend there is any chance the Chronicle would publish an opposing viewpoint on this issue?
After reading that memo?
"Light-rail" is just a euphemism for "More Governement Spending" - in case you haven't been paying attention.
Newspapers print opposing opinions all the time.
No reason to expect the Chronicle wouldn't.
Reason #784 to oppose CFR.
What is the difference between me buying air time in order to express my political views a few days before an election, and a giant press conglomerate which happens to own publications or airwaves and using those to express the views of the controlling interests of the outlet? None.
These guys simply confirmed what everyone knew all along - those who own the presses can have an agenda which they want to promote.
Uh, pardon me - light rail is not efficient or cost-effective ANYWHERE in the US would be a far more accurate statement. While it's particularly stupid in Houston, goobermint transportation systems are ALL money losers and rely heavily on the taxpayer's pockets to keep running.
BS. This is the same paper that donated ad space without disclosing it to defeat an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative. The Chronicle is one of the most hopelessly biased newspapers in the country.
This is a newspaper that took one of my letters to the editor berating Clinton and changed it to a pro-Clinton letter.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
December 3, 2002
Document: Houston Chronicle Memo on Metro [Editor's Note: This memo was originally posted to the Houston Chronicle's website but subsequently removed. The original memo appeared at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1671002, which now says "no such article" exists. The following is what did exist.]
A Houston odyssey: DeLay, Lanier and light railNext November, voters in the city and across the Metropolitan Transit Authority service area will cast a truly important vote: They will decide whether Metro should be permitted to expand our rail rail system beyond the 7-mile South Main line.
There isn't a more critical issue on the horizon. I propose a series of editorials, editorial cartoons and Sounding Board columns leading up to the rail referendum, with this specific objective: Continuing our long standing efforts to make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here.
The timing, language and approach of the paper's editorials would, of course, be the decision of the Editorial Board. But I suggest that they could be built upon and informed by a news-feature package with an equally specific focus: Telling the story of rail here by examining the long term relationship of the two key players in the local transit wars -- Rep. Tom DeLay and former Mayor Bob Lanier. For better or worse, (mostly worse, I would argue) no two have had a more significant impact on transit decisions here. Our readers deserve to know how they've operated to fund and promote an anti-rail agenda for the past two decades. This would be vital information for voters as they come to their decision on rail. It would also be highly entertaining read.
We in Houston have our own version of the "Chinatown" story of the early 20th century Los Angeles, when the currency of power was water: Who controlled it; who received it; where it came from; and where it went at what price. Since World War II, Houston's currency has bee concrete-- millions of cubic yards poured for freeways.
DeLay and Lanier have been the two central characters in our local drama. This urban-suburban, Republican-Democrat odd couple is bound by the belief highways and poured concrete are the path to a profitable future for this area, and its converse--the belief that mass transit must be stopped in its tracks.
The broad elements of the news/features package could include:
• The story of how the Lanier-DeLay relationship began (in the early 1980's when Lanier was chairman of the state Hiway Commission and DeLay was a young congressman)
• Lanier the land man: Through his privately held Landar Corp., Lanier has long shown his prescience in purchasing land where roads would ultimately go. Where are his holdings? Specifically , where are his holdings along the Grand Parkway? How has he benefitted by the building of roads.
• DeLay's steady rise to power in Congress. How it come about and, more importantly, how it was funded (by the highway lobby).
• Lanier's rise to political power. His rift with former Mayor Kathy Whitmire that turned into a determination to run her off (he did and she was never heard from again); his controversial shifting of transit funds into the city budget in the much discussed "Metro transfer."
• Bob Lanier, public kingmaker. For almost a decade, the path to public office in Houston has wound through Lanier's den. Mayoral and City Council hopefuls, congressional candidates, would-be Texas Texas legislators and county commissioners--all come to kiss the great man's ring and bid for his approval. What is protocol? Who makes introductions? What is the quid-pro-quo? And, the $64 question: How has Lanier managed to promote himself as the patron saint of inner city Houston while working with DeLay to promote a relentlessly suburban/freeway/anti-rail funding agenda at all levels of government?
• Ground zero for November: The campaign led by DeLay and Lenier to defeat rail expansion. Who is doing the funding? What is the history of the San Antonio-based think tank doing the the research to discredit rail?
Any number of sidebar topics also come to mind:
• The Fort Bend mayors who are bucking DeLay and Lanier to bring commuter rail to the thousands of Fort Bend residents who work in the Medical Center.
• Laniers involvement in the lawsuit brought by former Houston Councilman Robb Todd to hold up the South Main light rail project.
• Elyse Lanier: From jewelry salesperson to Houston political insider.
• The Greater Houston Partnership and the clean-air saga. When the Environmental Protection Agency put clean-air deadlines on the Houston region in the early 1990's, the Partnership resisted mightily. The thinking was: We have the political connections in Washington--from George Bush and Bill Archer to DeLay and Lloyd Bentson-- to stall and stonewall until this all goes away. What went wrong? What was the Chronicle's role in supporting this approach?
• A primer on highway building, Houston style: Why the Southwest Freeway turned south and west rather than continuing due west (developer Frank Sharp had a hand in this).
• Why Texas highways have frontage roads (a key to economic development) in the first place. Sam Rayburn added them to the language in President Eisenhower's landmark legislation creating the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's. At whose bidding?
This is a story in urgent need of telling, and an editorial position of equal urgency. Voters deserve to know the history of how Houston came to be a city of freeways well before they decide about rail's future next November. They need to know who has wielded the power to pour concrete, who still wields it and to what lengths the concrete pourers will go in order to stop rail.
[Taken from the web 11/20/02 11:07 PM]
[Visit http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1672673 and you will still find:Nov. 21, 2002, 11:05PM
Document mistakenly posted to siteAn internal Houston Chronicle document was mistakenly posted to the editorial/opinion area of the Web site early Thursday morning. We apologize for any confusion it may have caused.]
If it had to do with trade or immigration, they probably couldn't tell the difference.
What's maddening about the pro-rail forces here in Houston is that it can only help a fraction of the population. Houston is enormous in terms of geographical size. You need to come down here and see it to understand that.
If you spent a trillion dollars, you might be able to install a system that would work to efficiently move people. Anything less won't. We are low-density.
IMHO, your misconception is that one, and only one, mode of transportation is sufficient for everybody. Transportation infrastructure is much more complex than that, especially in a major metropolitan area such as your own.
Now if Houston was a small city of 25K people or less, I'd agree with you, light-rail would be totally ludicrous. But Houston is nowhere near that small, and a variety of means of transportation should be available to suit the various needs of different people.
If you put in hundreds of lines, you might serve the community. Maybe.
Once again you make the false assumption that one mode of transportation must satisfy everybody's need. It simply isn't true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.