• Hundreds of vacant lots in Houston’s Greater Third Ward, originally acquired by the Midtown Redevelopment Authority (MRA) for affordable housing, remain unused or have been diverted to unrelated developments. This policy proposes the full transfer of all remaining MRA-controlled lots in Third Ward to the Houston Land Bank (HLB) for redevelopment as permanently affordable housing through the Houston Community Land Trust (HCLT), with oversight by a new Third Ward Housing Advisory Committee to ensure community-led planning, transparency, and long-term equity.

  • What is the problem?
    The MRA’s affordable housing initiative has failed to deliver on its promises. Despite acquiring hundreds of parcels in the Third Ward with tax increment (TIRZ) funding, most lots remain vacant or underutilized. Others have been allocated for market-rate or non-housing projects, including a controversial $22 million office building. The absence of a transparent, accountable mechanism for land disposition has fueled gentrification and undermined housing stability for long-time residents.

    Who is impacted and how?
    This failure disproportionately impacts Black residents of Third Ward, particularly low-income families, seniors, and renters. These groups face heightened displacement pressures as housing costs rise and public land assets are mismanaged. Financially, the public loses the opportunity to generate equitable development and community wealth. Public health is also at stake, because vacant lots attract blight, vector-borne disease, and disinvestment while housing insecurity drives poor health outcomes.

    How has the City attempted to solve this in the past?
    While the City of Houston has invested in the Houston Land Bank and HCLT as tools for affordable housing delivery, MRA has operated largely without meaningful public oversight. The MRA’s housing targets have consistently fallen short. There is no comprehensive, community-driven plan to bring the MRA’s land portfolio under aligned stewardship.

    What promises has this broken?
    The MRA’s original charge was to mitigate displacement by producing affordable housing. Its failure to deliver constitutes a breach of public trust. Public commitments made to legacy Third Ward residents during land acquisition phases have not been honored. Investigative reporting and community testimonies reveal a pattern of opacity and disregard for public input.

  • What part of the problem does this solve?
    I propose we reclaim public land for its intended public purpose: permanent affordability and equitable development. We must place land stewardship in the hands of institutions—HLB and HCLT—with a demonstrable track record of transparency, accountability, and affordability. This will empower the community to lead and monitor the process through a formal Housing Advisory Committee.

    Where else has this solution or similar been attempted?
    Cities such as Atlanta, Durham, and Denver have effectively combined land banks with community land trusts to produce permanently affordable housing. Houston’s own pilot efforts through the HLB/HCLT partnership have delivered successful models in the Sunnyside and Near Northside neighborhoods. These efforts show the value of removing land from speculative markets and grounding housing in long-term affordability mechanisms.

    What is left unsolved by this solution?
    This proposal addresses only the land disposition and stewardship piece of the affordable housing challenge. It does not resolve broader zoning reform needs, gaps in housing subsidies, or infrastructure investment disparities. Sustained coordination with other City departments and state and federal funding streams will be essential to scale and sustain progress.

    Legal Authority and Preemption
    The City and the MRA, as a local government corporation (LGC), have full legal authority to convey land to the Houston Land Bank. There are no state-level preemption barriers. Precedent exists for public land transfer among these entities.

    Financial Impact to the City
    This proposal is not cost-intensive. Most implementation costs will be borne by existing HLB and HCLT operations, which can leverage federal programs like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and philanthropic funding.

    • Revenue Impact: Long-term tax base stability and potential revenue from ground leases.

    Funding Source: No additional General Fund dollars required at this stage. HLB’s operations are supported by federal and private sector partners.

    1. Introduce Ordinance: Draft and introduce a City Council ordinance to authorize the full conveyance of MRA lots in Third Ward to the Houston Land Bank, with deed restrictions for permanent affordability.

    2. Establish Housing Advisory Committee: Create a Third Ward Housing Advisory Committee composed of residents, planners, and community-based organizations to guide priorities, design standards, and builder selection.

    3. Public Engagement: Convene community forums to establish development goals, accessibility standards, and affordability tiers aligned with community needs.

    4. Transparency Mechanism: Develop a public-facing dashboard to monitor lot transfers, development timelines, housing prices, and affordability compliance.

    1. Chronicle Staff. 2025. “A Houston Agency Was Supposed to Help Third Ward Fight Gentrification. It Built a $22M Tower Instead.” Houston Chronicle, Jan 7, 2025. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/midtown-development-zone-office-building-19628432.php

    2. Chronicle Staff. 2025. “Houston’s Midtown Development Agency Has Been Plagued by Scandal. What Can Mayor Whitmire Do About It?” Houston Chronicle, Apr 8, 2025. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/midtown-redevelopment-authority-whitmire-changes-20036213.php

    3. Greater Third Ward Super Neighborhood #67 et al. 2025. Prospectus for Stewardship of Midtown Redevelopment Authority Affordable Housing Lots. Submitted to Mayor John Whitmire, July 9, 2025.

    4. Roshan Abraham, “How Houston Land Bank Is Building Accessible, Affordable Housing – While Turning a Profit,” Next City, November 14, 2024, accessed July 17, 2025, https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/how-houston-land-bank-is-building-accessible-affordable-housing-while-turni.

    5. Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Rice University, “The 2025 State of Housing in Harris County and Houston,” Kinder Institute for Urban Research, June 17, 2025, accessed July 17, 2025, https://kinder.rice.edu/research/2025-state-housing-harris-county-and-houston.

    6. Texas Tribune. 2023. “Houston Wanted to Lead the Nation in Long-Term Affordable Housing. Now It’s Backpedaling.” Texas Tribune, Feb 20, 2023. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/20/houston-land-trust-affordable-housing/

HOUSING

Vacant Lots to Homes

Transforming Fund 2409 into the Houston Affordable Housing Trust Fund

  • Fund 2409 was created to support affordable housing in Houston by capturing one-third of all TIRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone) revenues. However, lax oversight and weak policy guardrails have undermined its impact. This policy proposes converting Fund 2409 into a dedicated Houston Affordable Housing Trust Fund with binding expenditure rules, public oversight, and eligibility focused on households earning 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or less—with a priority for 60% AMI and below. The fund will drive equity-focused development through preservation, new construction, and wraparound supports, while attracting philanthropic and private-sector contributions.

  • What is the problem?
    Fund 2409 has not fulfilled its mandate to expand access to affordable housing in Houston. Instead, a significant portion of the fund has been used for administrative costs and vaguely defined initiatives. A 2017 audit by the City Controller found that more than half of expenditures were not directly tied to affordable housing creation or preservation. Further reporting from the Houston Chronicle revealed that although the fund collected over $130 million over a decade, it produced fewer than 500 homes with affordability covenants.

    What “accountable to” constituency does this problem impact? How?
    This problem disproportionately affects Houston’s low- and moderate-income residents—especially seniors, Black and Brown renters, and working families in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification and displacement pressures (e.g., Third Ward, Second Ward, Near Northside, Acres Homes, and Sunnyside). The lack of deeply affordable housing increases financial stress, contributes to housing insecurity and displacement, and exacerbates racial inequities in homeownership and wealth-building.

    How has the City attempted to solve this in the past?
    The City established Fund 2409 as a mechanism to earmark TIRZ revenues for affordable housing. However, the fund was not legally required to be used strictly for housing development or preservation, nor did it have strong monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Repeated calls for reform have not yielded binding structural changes, resulting in misalignment between spending and public need.

    What promises has this policy fallen short on?
    Fund 2409 was intended to equitably distribute the wealth generated through TIRZs by investing in housing for residents at risk of displacement. Instead, it has broken both the letter and spirit of this intent by favoring bureaucratic spending and insufficiently serving the targeted population. It has eroded public trust and contributed to worsening affordability challenges across the city.

  • What part of the problem does the solution solve?
    The proposed policy directly addresses the misuse of funds, lack of transparency, and failure to prioritize housing for residents most in need. It repositions Fund 2409 as a vehicle for equity and accountability by legally mandating its use for deeply affordable housing and community-centered development.

    Where else has a similar solution been attempted?

    • Austin, TX: The Austin Housing Trust Fund allocates dedicated revenue from property tax increments and development fees, with specific targets for low-income residents.

    • Atlanta, GA: The Atlanta Affordable Housing Trust Fund leverages TAD (Tax Allocation District) revenues to finance new affordable units and preserve existing housing.

    • Charlotte, NC; Denver, CO; Portland, OR: All maintain locally governed housing trust funds with public-private partnerships and multi-source revenue streams.
      These examples show that with defined expenditure policies and robust oversight, local housing trust funds can become critical tools for housing justice.

    Legal Authority
    The City of Houston has full legal authority to restructure Fund 2409 via ordinance. No state preemption has been applied to this area. The City can codify expenditure guidelines, eligibility requirements, and reporting standards under municipal law.

    Financial Impact
    This is not a new expenditure but a realignment of existing revenue.

    • Revenue Generating: Potentially, yes—if matched with philanthropic, corporate, or developer contributions.

    • General Fund Impact: Minimal to none unless expanded, as Fund 2409 already exists and is fed by TIRZ revenues.

    The Remaining Challenge  While this reform focuses on funding and governance, it does not streamline permitting, increase land availability, or address (lack of) zoning challenges. Those efforts must accompany trust fund reforms to maximize impact.

    1. Draft Ordinance
      Work with the City Legal Department and City Council Housing Committee to draft an ordinance creating the Houston Affordable Housing Trust Fund, outlining:

      • Eligible uses

      • Income targets

      • Caps on administrative costs

      • Annual reporting requirements

      2. Establish Independent Oversight Board
      Form a board with representatives from community organizations, housing experts, impacted residents, and developers to review and approve disbursements and annual plans.

      3. Develop Public Transparency Tools
      Create a publicly accessible dashboard to track disbursements by project, Council district, AMI served, and outcomes (e.g., number of units preserved/produced).

      4. Broaden Funding Sources
      Pursue partnerships with local foundations, anchor institutions, and impact investors. Consider enabling contributions through:

      • Development linkage fees

      • Bond proceeds

      • Short-term rental taxes

      • Corporate philanthropy

    1. Houston Chronicle. “Audit questions Houston's use of affordable housing funds.” July 11, 2017. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/Audit-questions-Houston-s-use-of-affordable-11271291.php

    2. Office of the City Controller, City of Houston. Housing & Community Development Department and Mayor’s Office of Economic Development Follow-Up Audit, Report #2026-01. July 10, 2025. https://www.houstontx.gov/controller/audit/reports/2026-01.pdf

    3. City of Houston Controller’s Office. “Audit of Affordable Housing Fund 2409,” 2017. https://www.houstontx.gov/controller/audit/reports/2018-01.pdf

    4. Minnesota Housing Partnership, Local Housing Trust Fund Manual for Minnesota (St Paul, MN: Minnesota Housing Partnership, July 30, 2019), https://mhponline.org/local-housing-trust-fund-manual-for-minnesota/

    5. Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Rice University, “The 2025 State of Housing in Harris County and Houston,” Kinder Institute for Urban Research, June 17, 2025, accessed July 17, 2025, https://kinder.rice.edu/research/2025-state-housing-harris-county-and-houston .

Comprehensive Housing Plan

  • A comprehensive affordable housing plan will ensure that the City’s housing policy is strategic, coordinated, and effective. It must ensure that every available affordable housing dollar is used exclusively for affordable housing—not siphoned off for unrelated projects or short-term optics. The plan must also serve as a public-facing framework to guide how Houston becomes a city where every resident has access to a safe, stable, and affordable home where they can thrive.

    The development of this plan will proceed in parallel with urgent structural reforms already underway: (1) the transfer of Midtown Redevelopment Authority (MRA) lots to the Houston Land Bank (HLB) for permanently affordable housing, and (2) the transformation of Fund 2409 into a binding Affordable Housing Trust Fund with enforceable affordability targets and public oversight. These reforms cannot wait for a plan to be completed—they are part of rebuilding trust and setting the groundwork for a functional housing system.

    Importantly, this plan will not be limited to the City’s housing department budget. It will coordinate across all entities and funding sources that impact affordability within Houston’s boundaries, including eight public agencies and authorities.

  • What is the problem?

    Houston has never had a comprehensive housing plan. Housing decisions are made in fragmented ways by multiple agencies and corporations, operating without a shared vision, accountability structure, or equity goals. This lack of alignment results in inefficiencies, duplication, and resource misuse.

    While public attention often focuses on the Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD) budget, at least eight other entities make decisions about affordable housing spending within Houston’s boundaries—often with no coordination:

    • Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCDD)

    • Houston Housing Authority (HHA)

    • Houston/Harris County Continuum of Care (CoC) funds managed by the Coalition for the Homeless

    • All TIRZ-generated affordable housing funds—including those not deposited into Fund 2409

    • Houston Housing Finance Corporation (HHFC)

    • Midtown Redevelopment Authority (MRA) and other Local Government Corporations (LGCs)

    • Harris County Community Services Department (HCSD)

    • Harris County Housing Finance Corporation (HCHFC)

    Without a plan, these entities operate independently—sometimes even at cross-purposes. The result is a reactive, non-transparent system that prioritizes discretionary convenience over long-term community benefit.

    Who is impacted?

    This failure impacts everyone who needs affordable housing—especially low-income renters, seniors, people experiencing homelessness, and working-class families in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods. But it also affects:

    • Employers, who face workforce instability

    • Hospitals, that absorb housing-related crises

    • Schools, that lose students to displacement

    • Public safety systems, that are overwhelmed by housing-related enforcement

    • Taxpayers, who fund emergency responses to a problem that should be prevented upstream

    The absence of a coordinated plan erodes public trust, undermines efficiency, and squanders resources intended to serve the most vulnerable.

    What has the City done to address this?

    Over the years, housing advocates have repeatedly called for a citywide plan. While some administrations have voiced support, no mayor has allocated sufficient funding or leadership to actually produce one. Instead, we've seen piecemeal efforts, donor-driven service contracts, and politically motivated spending that fail to address structural housing barriers.

    The failure to act has allowed key tools to drift from their original mission. The Midtown Redevelopment Authority acquired hundreds of lots for affordable housing but failed to develop them—or worse, diverted them to unrelated office and market-rate projects. Fund 2409, meant to harness TIRZ revenue for deeply affordable housing, has funded administrative costs or discretionary deals with no affordability guarantee.

    CDBG dollars have been used to fund the Department of Neighborhoods to ticket low-income residents for code violations rather than support repairs. HHFC has supported downtown luxury apartments with no affordability set-aside.

    What promises have been broken?

    City leaders promised that public land and revenue would serve affordable housing and prevent displacement. Instead, residents have seen these resources diverted or neglected, while their neighborhoods gentrify and longtime residents are pushed out. The City has broken not just policy commitments—but its moral obligation to steward public assets for public good.

    What “accountable to” constituency does this problem impact? How?
    This problem disproportionately affects Houston’s low- and moderate-income residents—especially seniors, Black and Brown renters, and working families in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification and displacement pressures (e.g., Third Ward, Second Ward, Near Northside, Acres Homes, and Sunnyside). The lack of deeply affordable housing increases financial stress, contributes to housing insecurity and displacement, and exacerbates racial inequities in homeownership and wealth-building.

    How has the City attempted to solve this in the past?
    The City established Fund 2409 as a mechanism to earmark TIRZ revenues for affordable housing. However, the fund was not legally required to be used strictly for housing development or preservation, nor did it have strong monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Repeated calls for reform have not yielded binding structural changes, resulting in misalignment between spending and public need.

    What promises has this policy fallen short on?
    Fund 2409 was intended to equitably distribute the wealth generated through TIRZs by investing in housing for residents at risk of displacement. Instead, it has broken both the letter and spirit of this intent by favoring bureaucratic spending and insufficiently serving the targeted population. It has eroded public trust and contributed to worsening affordability challenges across the city.

  • What part of the problem does this solve?

    The Comprehensive Housing Plan will solve for the systemic lack of coordination, transparency, and prioritization in Houston’s affordable housing landscape. It will:

    • Create a coordinated, citywide strategy that includes all relevant housing-related entities

    • Set measurable goals for housing production, preservation, and affordability (especially at ≤60% and ≤80% Area Median Income (AMI))

    • Align public land, funding, and community development tools with neighborhood-driven priorities

    • Introduce public accountability mechanisms like dashboards, independent oversight, and annual reporting

    • Codify equity-centered investment practices across all agencies

    Crucially, the plan will be built in tandem with structural reforms already moving forward:

    • Transfer of MRA lots to HLB for community-driven affordable housing via HCLT

    • Transformation of Fund 2409 into a real housing trust fund with legal spending restrictions and oversight

    Where has this worked elsewhere?

    Cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Austin have adopted comprehensive housing plans that coordinate citywide funding, set transparent goals, and implement long-term affordability strategies. Houston’s neighboring jurisdictions—especially Harris County—have already moved in this direction. But without a comparable plan, Houston continues to fall behind.

    What remains unsolved?

    The plan does not close Houston’s $30–$40 billion housing affordability gap, nor does it override state-level preemptions (e.g., source-of-income discrimination). It also will not, on its own, resolve the City’s broken permitting and zoning systems. But it creates the structural foundation needed to address those challenges over time.

    Does the City have legal authority?

    Yes. The City can adopt a comprehensive housing plan, restructure Fund 2409 by ordinance, and transfer land from the MRA to HLB. There are no state barriers preventing a coordinated approach across multiple public entities.

    Financial Impact to the City

    • Cost to develop the plan: $1–$2 million

    • Savings potential: High—through efficiency, reduced duplication, and lower emergency services costs

    Revenue potential: Better alignment with federal grants, philanthropic investment, and long-term affordability measures like ground leases

    1. Establish a Planning and Oversight Task Force
       Include HCDD, HLB, HCLT, HHFC, HHA, MRA, Harris County agencies, and neighborhood-based organizations.

    2. Codify Immediate Structural Reforms

      • Transfer MRA lots to the HLB under deed restrictions for permanent affordability

      • Enact an ordinance to convert Fund 2409 into the Houston Affordable Housing Trust Fund with income-targeted eligibility and oversight

    3. Fund and Launch Plan Development
       Use HUD planning resources, philanthropic dollars, or existing CDBG allocations to begin the plan development process with robust community engagement.

    4. Implement Public Transparency Tools

      • Housing investment dashboard with filters by AMI, Council district, and project type

      • Annual report to City Council and public

      • Housing Advisory Committee with representation from impacted communities

    1. Houston Chronicle. “Audit questions Houston's use of affordable housing funds.” July 11, 2017. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/Audit-questions-Houston-s-use-of-affordable-11271291.php

    2. Office of the City Controller, City of Houston. Housing & Community Development Department and Mayor’s Office of Economic Development Follow-Up Audit, Report #2026-01. July 10, 2025. https://www.houstontx.gov/controller/audit/reports/2026-01.pdf

    3. City of Houston Controller’s Office. “Audit of Affordable Housing Fund 2409,” 2017. https://www.houstontx.gov/controller/audit/reports/2018-01.pdf

    4. Minnesota Housing Partnership, Local Housing Trust Fund Manual for Minnesota (St Paul, MN: Minnesota Housing Partnership, July 30, 2019), https://mhponline.org/local-housing-trust-fund-manual-for-minnesota/

    5. Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Rice University, “The 2025 State of Housing in Harris County and Houston,” Kinder Institute for Urban Research, June 17, 2025, accessed July 17, 2025, https://kinder.rice.edu/research/2025-state-housing-harris-county-and-houston .

Transportation

Comprehensive Transportation Planning and Public Project Transparency

  • Houston lacks a consistent and transparent approach to transportation planning and infrastructure project communication. The fragmented nature of transportation planning among agencies, combined with limited public access to project information, leads to confusion, inefficiency, and a missed opportunity to align infrastructure investments with the city’s mobility, safety, and economic development goals. A comprehensive transportation plan—paired with a centralized, publicly accessible map of transportation projects—would restore leadership to the City of Houston, improve transparency, and foster coordination among local, regional, and state entities.

  • The City of Houston currently lacks a coherent, city-led strategy for guiding transportation investments. Without a comprehensive transportation plan, decisions around transit, bikeways, streets, and freight infrastructure are made in a piecemeal, politically driven manner. This lack of shared vision allows reactive governance to dominate, reducing the City’s ability to effectively prioritize projects, compete for external funding, and ensure consistency with regional mobility goals. Political interference in agency-led work has also jeopardized federal grants and weakened public trust.

    Further exacerbating this issue is the fragmentation of infrastructure information. Agencies like METRO, Harris County, TxDOT, and various management districts often undertake projects independently, and the public lacks a single, accessible tool to understand what is being built, when, and by whom. This erodes trust in government, creates public frustration, and reduces civic engagement in transportation decision-making.

    The status quo impacts several constituencies. Businesses suffer from unpredictable traffic disruptions and lack of long-term infrastructure alignment. Residents experience avoidable construction confusion and degraded pedestrian safety. These problems disproportionately affect communities with limited mobility options, reinforcing transportation inequities. Though previous initiatives like the Bike Plan or Vision Zero have touched parts of the transportation system, they were never fully integrated into a broader capital improvement framework or paired with real-time implementation transparency. The absence of a unifying vision has broken the implicit public promise of coordinated, data-informed, and inclusive transportation investment.

  • To address these challenges, the City should undertake a two-pronged strategy:

    1. Develop a Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) that integrates all modes of movement—transit, bikeways, sidewalks, freight, streets, and safety.

    2. Launch a Public Infrastructure Dashboard that maps all major public infrastructure projects - regardless of implementing agency - in one accessible digital platform.

    The CTP would serve as a blueprint for policy, design, and capital investment over the next two decades. It would include actionable near-term items such as street project prioritization, a sidewalk strategy, and the next 50 miles of bike infrastructure. Houston should lead this effort to realign fragmented efforts under one civic framework. This would prevent the current administration - or future ones - from undermining established best practices or jeopardizing partnerships with H-GAC or federal agencies.

    The interactive map component would provide real-time visibility into all ongoing and upcoming roadway, transit, and capital projects. Inspired by platforms used in National City, California and Hutto, Texas, this site would include project descriptions, status updates, traffic alerts, conceptual designs, and opportunities for public feedback. This solution addresses the demand for greater civic transparency and provides businesses and residents with actionable information.

    Precedents for these solutions exist across the U.S. Cities like Boston, Austin, and San Diego have implemented capital improvement dashboards and coordinated mobility plans to great effect. Their experience shows that visualizing infrastructure improves civic understanding and inter-agency accountability.

    However, a CTP alone cannot ensure implementation without political backing or dedicated funding. Likewise, a project dashboard may only be as reliable as the information agencies agree to provide. These tools must be linked to enforceable policies, ongoing maintenance, and regular public updates.

    Houston has the legal authority to develop a citywide transportation plan and maintain a transparency portal. While some transportation domains are subject to state control (e.g., TxDOT projects), no law prohibits the City from coordinating internally or externally, nor from transparently sharing infrastructure data.

    The financial cost of a CTP and project dashboard is modest compared to their long-term benefit. H-GAC would be a strategic funding partner—especially with the renewed attention to Prop B. The planning process and dashboard development could be funded via a combination of the General Fund, regional grants, and philanthropic support. Over time, these investments would improve capital efficiency, reduce duplicative spending, and boost the City’s competitiveness in federal grant programs.

    1. Convene a coalition of planning partners, including H-GAC, METRO, Harris County, and local universities.

    2. Secure funding and staff resources to initiate the planning process and technology platform design.

    3. Define the dashboard’s scope with stakeholder input and implement it incrementally—starting with high-impact, high-visibility corridors.

    1. ClearGov. (2021, September 8). 7 Best Practices for Promoting Capital Improvements in Your Community. https://cleargov.com/rc/article/best-practices-promoting-capital-improvements

    2. ClearGov. (2019, December 5). Department Dashboards Give Every Unit in Your Agency an Opportunity to Shine. https://cleargov.com/rc/article/department-dashboards-give-every-unit-opportunity-to-shine

    3. City of Hutto. (2025). Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects Dashboard. https://www.huttotx.gov/363/Capital-Improvement-Plan-CIP-Projects

    4. City of National City. (2025). CIP Projects Dashboard. https://natcity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/806c335977874ffa8b52792fd58db018

    5. Pew Research Center. (2024). Mobile Fact Sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/

    6. Buell, R. W., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Science, 57(9), 1564-1579. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/Norton_Michael_The%20labor%20illusion%20How%20operational_f4269b70-3732-4fc4-8113-72d0c47533e0.pdf

Freight Rail Crossing Safety

  • The freight network that cuts across Houston poses an enormous safety risk (delaying emergency vehicles, causing pedestrian fatalities, and recently derailing). ‘At grade crossings’ degrade our quality of life with noise and traffic delays. The city must lead the way on addressing this issue comprehensively.  

  • At-grade freight crossings - where railroad tracks cut through neighborhoods, across city streets - are particularly bad in Houston’s city center and on the east side.  Freight crossings also impact  other parts of the city –Hiram Clarke, Galveston Road,  290 Road, US 90A, and the River Oaks / Galleria area. 

    This leads to: 

    • Increased risk of trains hitting motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. 

    • Delays in school and work commutes - whether on foot, via car, bike or public transit.  

    • Delays and rerouting of emergency vehicles. 

    • Neighborhood disturbance (e.g., lack of quiet zones leading to train horns).

    Some plans have proposed grade separations  or pedestrian bridges in parts of the city,  but no comprehensive solution has been proposed to separate whole lines, not just crossings. A piecemeal approach to a system-wide problem leaves Houstonians at unnecessary risk.  

  • The only complete solution is grade separating crossings - elevating or depressing either roads or rail lines.   Priority should be given to high volume rail lines and those that move slowly in the core part of Houston and around major yards. The city must lead the way in applying for and securing state and federal funding to execute a grade separation plan and to ensure that all TxDOT highway projects address adjacent crossings. METRO funds may be used for grade separations that will make bus service more reliable. 

    While grade separations are being funded and built the city should work with partners to fund and install crossing monitoring systems.  In Sugarland, these systems help drivers, first responders, and  transit dispatchers know in real time which crossings are blocked.

    1. Convene a coalition of planning partners, including Public Works, Planning Department, H-GAC, METRO, Harris County, Port of Houston, and representatives from relevant rail companies.

    2. Secure funding and staff resources to initiate the planning process.

  • Freight related crash data and stats (2021 - 2023) for Harris County

Upholding the METRONext Vision

  • In 2019, Houston voters overwhelmingly approved the METRONext plan - a $3.5 billion transit vision for expanded bus rapid transit (BRT), rail corridors, and improved bus service. But under the Whitmire administration, that vision has been systematically dismantled, with major projects indefinitely postponed and transit dollars redirected toward road resurfacing. In response, this policy proposes City ordinances that preserve METRONext’s voter-approved integrity, require its integration into any City-led street construction, and re-center long-term transit equity and connectivity in Houston’s infrastructure planning.

  • METRONext represented a generational opportunity to transform mobility in Houston. The plan, developed over years of community engagement and technical review, proposed 75+ miles of new BRT, major rail expansions, and improvements to local routes, sidewalks, and transit access in communities like Gulfton and Acres Homes. The $3.5 billion bond referendum received support from nearly 70% of voters, signaling a clear public mandate to expand high-capacity, equitable public transit.

    However, since taking office, Mayor John Whitmire and his newly appointed Metro board have dramatically shifted direction under a new plan called MetroNow. MetroNow emphasizes short-term service enhancements - like increased cleaning, policing, and microtransit pilots  - while pulling back from the infrastructure investments that make robust transit possible. METRO has already removed key project pages for the University, Inner Katy, and Gulfton BRT lines. Meanwhile, the city has repaved streets that once hosted bus-only lanes and has deprioritized sidewalk and bike connectivity.

    This shift not only undermines long-term transit expansion, but also violates the spirit - if not the letter - of the METRONext bond. By diverting transit-designated funds to general-purpose road repairs, Metro and the City risk breaking faith with voters who approved the plan. And with bus service levels still below pre-COVID levels, neighborhoods that rely most on transit are being left behind once again.

  • To defend the METRONext vision and prevent further erosion of voter-approved transit priorities, the City of Houston should adopt the following two ordinances:

    1. Transit Corridor Protection Ordinance
       Require that any City-led street construction, repaving, or redesign project along METRONext-designated BRT or rail corridors must include and preserve the transit features outlined in the plan. This includes right-of-way for BRT lanes, transit signal priority, and platform-ready street design. No street reconstruction should move forward if it compromises or precludes a METRONext project.

    2. Bus Stop Infrastructure Ordinance
       Require that all City capital projects include high-quality bus stop amenities—such as shelters, benches, ADA-accessible sidewalks, lighting, and wayfinding—at METRO-served locations. Additionally, commercial and multifamily developers should be required to contribute to transit infrastructure near their projects, ensuring that new development supports transit use.

    These ordinances are within the City’s legal authority and consistent with Houston’s Complete Streets Executive Order. They provide a direct mechanism for the City to uphold METRONext even if METRO deprioritizes it. Embedding future transit infrastructure into today’s street design is fiscally smart, environmentally responsible, and equitable.

    Importantly, these ordinances are not about dictating specific corridor routes or station designs. Instead, they ensure that the City does not undermine future transit through neglect or shortsighted street engineering. By requiring integration of METRONext projects into street construction, Houston reinforces the democratic principle that voter-approved plans must be honored and implemented.

    MetroNow, in contrast, fails to address Houston’s structural mobility needs. Its reliance on microtransit and aesthetics over connectivity and capacity is a poor substitute for the robust, high-ridership system METRONext envisioned. MetroNow proposes scattered fixes in place of a system-wide strategy and continues a pattern of underinvestment in the communities most reliant on public transit.

    1. Draft ordinance language with support from transit lawyers, planning experts, and Complete Communities representatives.

    2. Convene a public hearing on METRONext implementation and invite testimony from voters, neighborhood groups, and transit riders who supported the 2019 bond.

    3. Partner with LINK Houston, Air Alliance Houston, Rice University’s Kinder Institute, and other civic organizations to build public support and messaging.

    4. Emphasize that these ordinances defend the will of the voters and provide critical protections for long-term infrastructure readiness.

    5. Monitor upcoming City capital improvement projects and ensure the ordinances are applied to active corridor redesigns.

    1. Ganesh, A. (2025, February 25). Transit agency announces MetroNow initiatives to boost ridership, improve experience. Houston Landing.https://houstonlanding.org/transit-agency-announces-metronow-initiatives-to-boost-ridership-improve-experience/

    2. Hagerty, M. & Cohen, C. (2025, March 26). From METRONext to METRONow — how public transit is changing in Houston. Houston Public Media.https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/houston-matters/2025/03/26/516937/from-metronext-to-metronow-how-public-transit-is-changing-in-houston/

    3. Zuvanich, A. (2024, May 3). Is METRO scrapping its plans for bus rapid transit in Houston? Houston Public Media.https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2024/05/03/485628/is-metro-scrapping-its-plans-for-bus-rapid-transit-in-houston/

    4. Ganesh, A. (2024, May 28). Whitmire’s Metro emphasizes street repairs, microtransit. What does that mean for METRONext? Houston Landing.https://houstonlanding.org/whitmires-metro-emphasizes-street-repairs-microtransit-what-does-that-mean-for-metronext/

    5. Kinder Institute for Urban Research. (2019, February 20). At Rice University's Metro Day, Locals Share Their Concerns About METRONext. Rice University.https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/rice-universitys-metro-day-locals-share-their-concerns-about-metronext

    6. Sierra Club Houston Group. (2019, June 26). METROnext: Transit Plan Update. Sierra Club. https://www.sierraclub.org/texas/houston/blog/2019/06/metronext-transit-plan-update

Bring Vision Zero Back

  • Houston experienced a record-breaking 345 roadway deaths in 2024, a tragic reversal after years of modest progress under the City’s Vision Zero commitment. To stem this crisis, the City must re-commit to Vision Zero with an enforceable mandate: require all City-led street projects to incorporate traffic safety best practices based on national standards and establish cross-departmental crash response protocols that drive design reform.

  • At least 345 people lost their lives on Houston streets in 2024—the highest annual total in the city’s history. Victims include drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike, disproportionately impacting Black and Hispanic men. Despite a decrease in total crashes, fatalities surged by 15% compared to 2023, reflecting the severity of crashes on streets where vehicle speed and road design amplify risk (Begley, 2025).

    Houston adopted a Vision Zero Action Plan in November 2020, committing to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. The plan emphasized redesigning streets for safety using a “Safe Systems” approach, data transparency, and equitable community engagement. However, under Mayor Whitmire, that vision has been largely abandoned. The administration has halted safety projects, widened lanes against expert advice, removed safety medians, and deemphasized Vision Zero as a guiding principle (McClenagan, 2025; Zuvanich, 2024).

    Houston adopted a Vision Zero Action Plan in November 2020, committing to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. The plan emphasized redesigning streets for safety using a “Safe Systems” approach, data transparency, and equitable community engagement. However, under Mayor Whitmire, that vision has been largely abandoned. The administration has halted safety projects, widened lanes against expert advice, removed safety medians, and deemphasized Vision Zero as a guiding principle (McClenagan, 2025; Zuvanich, 2024).

  • What the Solution Solves

    The proposed policy directly addresses the design flaws that make Houston’s roads dangerous. It corrects the Whitmire administration’s retreat from safety-focused planning and re-centers evidence-based solutions that reduce crashes by slowing traffic, narrowing lanes, improving pedestrian crossings, and creating dedicated space for all road users.

    Precedents

    Cities like Austin, Hoboken, and New York have implemented Vision Zero with measurable success. Austin, for example, has seen its traffic fatality rate on city-owned roads drop significantly - reportedly achieving a per capita traffic death rate 50% lower than Houston's - thanks to persistent application of the Vision Zero approach (Fairbank, 2025). Internationally, countries like Sweden and Canada have reduced traffic deaths by as much as 50% using these design principles (Grove & Lynn, 2022).

    Limitations

    This proposal doesn’t fully address enforcement or driver behavior - issues like distracted driving and intoxication will still require complementary efforts in education and policing. Additionally, streets managed by TxDOT remain outside the City's jurisdiction, limiting comprehensive change unless interagency coordination improves.

    Legal Authority

    Houston retains full legal authority over city-owned streets and infrastructure. However, the Texas Legislature has previously attempted to preempt local governments from implementing “road diets” and lane reductions. While opposition is possible, no blanket preemption currently prohibits safety-focused designs.

    Fiscal Impact

    There is no new fiscal burden associated with this policy. It calls for better use of existing capital improvement resources and design standards. Redesigns already underway can be modified at negligible cost to incorporate safety standards. In fact, recommitting to Vision Zero may unlock federal grants tied to safety metrics, such as the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, which awarded Houston over $100 million prior to Whitmire's rollback (Zuvanich, 2024).

    Revenue Potential

    Indirectly, safer streets reduce emergency response costs, hospitalizations, and crash-related lawsuits. Moreover, a recommitment could qualify Houston for future federal safety funding.

    1. Pass a City ordinance requiring all City-funded street design and capital projects to follow safety principles from NACTO and national Vision Zero guidance.

    2. Reestablish the High Injury Network analysis with annual updates, using crash data to prioritize safety interventions.

    3. Form a Public Works–Police Crash Review Board that evaluates all traffic fatalities and recommends design-based prevention strategies.

    4. Mandate publication of Vision Zero annual report cards as required in the adopted 2020 plan (Communication 1.1), alongside reports for the Complete Streets and Houston Bike Plan.

    5. Incorporate safety upgrades (like narrower lanes, improved pedestrian crossings, and bike infrastructure) in already-funded capital improvement projects.

    6. Restore and expand community engagement with vulnerable neighborhoods, particularly those overrepresented in fatality data.

  • Begley, D. (2025, February 3). Houston just recorded its highest number of road deaths. What can Mayor Whitmire do about it? Houston Chronicle. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/houston-roadway-deaths-record-20023292.php

    Brey, J. (2024, April 11). Houston’s new mayor pumps the brakes on street safety projects. Governing Magazine. https://www.governing.com/transportation/houstons-new-mayor-pumps-the-brakes-on-street-safety-projects

    Fairbank, R. (2025, February 7). “When you design roads, that is public health.” Harvard Public Health Magazine. https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/vision-zero-aims-to-reduce-traffic-deaths-through-better-road-design

    Grove, L., & Lynn, V. (2022, October 20). To achieve Vision Zero, Houston must shift the way it thinks about transportation at every level. Urban Edge, Kinder Institute for Urban Research. https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/achieve-vision-zero-houston-transportation

    McClenagan, K. (2025, February 3). Houston traffic fatalities rose to record numbers in 2024 as city lags on previous Vision Zero goals. Houston Public Media. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2025/02/03/512816/houston-traffic-fatalities-rose-to-record-numbers-in-2024-as-city-lags-on-pervious-vision-zero-goals

    Zuvanich, A. (2024, March 21). Houston deemphasizing commitment to Vision Zero traffic safety initiative under new Mayor John Whitmire. Houston Public Media. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/traffic/2024/03/21/481261/houston-deemphasizing-commitment-to-vision-zero-traffic-safety-initiative-under-new-mayor-john-whitmire

Water & Green Infrastructure

Worst-First Stormwater Infrastructure

  • Since 1983, Houston has had a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - a five year plan of projects meant to address our infrastructure needs. Houston’s current method of selecting and prioritizing drainage projects within the CIP is inefficient, convoluted, and susceptible to political influence. To maximize the impact of currently available drainage funding, worsening climate impacts and deteriorating infrastructure - the city must adopt and implement a “worst-first” model that includes an up-to-date assessment of  infrastructure condition (or lack thereof), flood risk, social vulnerability, and environmental hazards. Adopting a worst-first framework with these metrics will make the most of our limited resources and reduce the financial and human cost of future disasters.

  • A 2024 study by the National Center for Environmental Information ranked Harris County as having the highest weather and climate hazard risk in the country because of our physical exposure to natural disasters, amplified by the vulnerability of our population and infrastructure. 

    Decades of underfunding and poor investment choices have resulted in outdated, life-threatening stormwater infrastructure across Houston. Both street and home flooding are major contributors to lower health and quality of life, especially as the danger of floodwaters are compounded by other environmental hazards including sewage overflows, truck pollution, and toxic industries. Increasingly severe storms are  further straining Houston’s already outdated systems of underground and open ditch drainage. 

    Failing to address climate risk is worsening Houston’s housing crisis and damaging our existing stock of affordable housing. Climate risk has repeatedly been identified as a top concern for people continuing to live in the city. 70% of Houston residents are concerned or very concerned about extreme weather, and 9% of census blocks in Harris County are listed as “climate abandonment areas”. 

  • A truly worst-first stormwater investment plan will ensure that the existing funds for infrastructure are spent in the most efficient and life-enhancing way. It will allow for real long-term planning that doesn’t operate from a baseline of funding shortfalls and a 10-year project backlog. 

    The city has total legal authority to develop a stormwater master plan and set standards for how it spends its own money. In the long-term, the financial impact of a prioritization process will be revenue neutral. Some one-time costs will be incurred in the development of the prioritization processes and changes to the CIP project selection process.  The following municipalities have prioritization processes for stormwater management that takes into account public health, environmental justice, and neighborhood-level vulnerabilities. 

    A prioritization process does not solve the current (and historic) underfunding of drainage infrastructure projects in Houston, but it will ensure that infrastructure the city develops with its limited funds will be put to the highest and best use: saving the lives and homes of Houstonians.  

  • Houston Stormwater Master Plan, City of Houston

    Houston at epicenter of climate disasters, facing severe economic, human losses, Houston Chronicle 

    King County Stormwater Retrofit Framework, King County

    Harris County Prioritization Framework, Harris County

    Burlington, Vermont, Environmental Protection Agency

    Pittsburgh Strategic Plan for Stormwater, City of Pittsburgh

    Tacoma Watershed Planning, City of Tacoma

Keep Houston Cool 

  • Houston is only getting hotter. By 2050, heat waves are expected to last up to 27 consecutive days. We must take meaningful action now to mitigate the public health and economic impacts of  one of the most dangerous side effects of climate change.  Houston needs a comprehensive extreme heat plan,  underpinned by local ordinances, to increase shade cover, expand and incentivize cooling infrastructure, and protect those at a higher risk for heat-related illness and death.

  • Extreme heat is one of the most dangerous climate impacts, but there are common sense investments and adaptations the City of Houston can take to reduce impacts, especially in the hottest parts of the city. By developing a plan not just to respond to extreme heat, but to mitigate its effects, the City of Houston will keep the elderly, children, outdoor workers and those with disabilities safer from climate change.  Across Houston, differences in shade cover mean that temperatures can vary by up to 14 degrees.  High energy costs and building codes designed in a different climate era mean that too few working Houstonians can afford to cool their homes apporpriately.  While the city has a plan to respond to extreme heat events and supports tree planting, we must scale up heat mitigation efforts to keep Houstonians safe.

  • Intervention 1:  Continue tracking heat and start tracking public health impacts through collaboration with community partners and healthcare providers, inspired by Maricopa County’s heat tracking.  

    Intervention 2: Increase shade cover in high heat neighborhoods through expanded tree-planting and maintenance.  Amend Chapter 33, Section 33-110 (Ord.No. 03-159, Sec. 5, 2-12- 03; Ord. No. 04-1015, Sec. 24, 9-27-04) to increase the tree planting requirement from two trees to four trees, per the recommendation of the City of Houston’s Shade Brigade. 

    Intervention 3: Develop shade structures in the public right of way  in highest-heat neighborhoods, inspired by Phoenix’s sidewalk shade program.

    Intervention 4: Incentivize cool roof retrofits through public financing  with an emphasis on highest-heat neighborhoods. Cool roof retrofits for existing market-rate or subsidized affordable housing may be financed through a revolving loan seeded through Fund 2409. 

    Intervention 5: Require the new construction in the City of Houston to meet high solar reflectance standards, inspired by Atlanta’s Cool Roof Ordinance. 

    Intervention 6: Support further heat mitigating retrofits of multifamily and single family housing through deep energy retrofits financed by tax increment dollars, inspired by Massachusetts’ Climate Ready Housing. 

    Intervention 7: Increase access to public cooling infrastructure like pools, libraries, and community centers. 

    1. Introduce Ordinance: Draft and introduce a City Council ordinance for Solution Interventions #2, #5.

    2. Establish Heat Health Impacts Committee: Create a Citywide Heat Health Committee composed of residents, healthcare professionals, and community-based organizations to design a heat tracking program in the most heavily impacted neighborhoods (Intervention #1).

    3. Public Engagement: Convene community visioning forums to solicit feedback from the public on the right mix of Intervention #3 and #7 fits for their community. 

    4. City Council Committee Work: Work with the City Council Housing Committee to further develop Interventions #4 and #6.

  • City of Houston Shade Brigade

    Heat Emergency Plan for City of Houston

    Heat Safety in Public Housing 

    Climate Ready Housing and Deep Energy Retrofits - Massachusetts 

    Atlanta’s Cool Roof Ordinance

    O’ahu’s Climate Resilience Plan

    Phoenix’s Sidewalk Shade Program

    Maricopa County Heat Tracking 

    Houston Advanced Research Center - Community Science Heat Mapping

Parks as Flood Mitigation

  • Houston’s existing park funding, grounded in outdated infrastructure boundaries, perpetuates environmental injustice by underfunding parks in flood-prone, historically marginalized communities. By redrawing parks sector boundaries to follow watershed lines and dedicating a portion of park funds to citywide use, Houston can transform parks into a strategic, equitable tool for flood mitigation and climate resilience.

  • What is the problem?
    Houston’s current Parks and Recreation Dedication Ordinance creates 21 parks funding sectors based on freeway boundaries rather than environmental or equity considerations. This arbitrary system reinforces historic redlining and disinvestment by funneling developer fees into affluent, high-development neighborhoods—primarily on the west side of the city—while leaving lower-income, flood-prone communities with inadequate park funding. This inequity limits the ability of these neighborhoods to expand or maintain parks, which are essential for absorbing floodwaters, reducing heat island effects, and improving quality of life.

    What “accountable to” constituency does this problem impact?
    This issue disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color, particularly in historically redlined areas like Third Ward (Sector 15), Near Northside (Sector 17), and Greater East End (Sector 11). These neighborhoods have fewer parks, less tree canopy cover, and higher risks of flooding and extreme heat. The lack of green infrastructure contributes to increased stormwater runoff, exacerbated urban heat islands, poor air quality, and diminished public health outcomes. Financially, it leaves these communities without access to a resource proven to reduce healthcare costs, increase property values, and create jobs in maintenance and construction.

    How has the City attempted to solve this problem in the past?
    The Parks and Recreation Dedication Fund was established in 2007 as a developer fee mechanism to expand Houston’s greenspace. Developers either build a park within a new subdivision or pay a $700 fee per housing unit into the local park sector’s fund. However, the fee amount has not increased since its inception and funds cannot be shared between sectors. The City has not attempted a comprehensive overhaul of sector boundaries or implemented citywide redistribution, although a similar equity-based reform was recently adopted in the Sidewalk Ordinance, which allocates 30% of funds for citywide improvements.

    What promises (in law or spirit) has this broken?
    This policy fails the promises of the Resilient Houston plan and the City’s Climate Action Plan, both of which emphasize equitable resilience and environmental justice. It also violates the spirit of Mayor Whitmire’s commitments to infrastructure fairness and neighborhood equity. The current system effectively redlines communities out of the benefits of nature-based climate adaptation, despite these being the areas most in need.

  • What part of the problem does the solution solve?
    This proposal would amend the ordinance to:

    1. Redraw park sector boundaries based on watershed geography, which better reflects natural stormwater flow and climate vulnerability.

    2. Mandate that 30% of park dedication funds are pooled for use across sectors, prioritizing under-resourced communities.

    3. Formally incorporate flood mitigation as a Parks Department objective, aligning parks strategy with the City’s flood resilience goals.

    Where else has this solution or similar been attempted?
    Seattle established a dedicated Park District with taxing authority and long-term funding streams to maintain and expand its park system equitably. Minneapolis similarly operates an independent park agency funded separately from the city budget. In Los Angeles, voters approved a parcel tax generating $90 million annually for parks, with a strong equity focus. Closer to home, Houston’s revised Sidewalk Ordinance provides a model for equitable distribution of development fees across geographic sectors.

    What is left unsolved by this solution?
    This proposal does not address long-term operations and maintenance, which remain underfunded within the general HPARD budget. It also does not directly raise new revenue—only reallocates existing development fees—so systemic underinvestment in parks citywide will persist unless supplemented by other funding sources (e.g., voter-approved bonds, tax districts, or philanthropic support).

    Does the city have legal authority to pursue this solution? Has state pre-emption been attempted in related policies?
    Yes, the City has local ordinance-making authority to modify how development fees are collected and distributed. State preemption has not been invoked in this domain, and the solution aligns with home rule governance under the Texas Constitution.

    What is the financial impact to the city?
    This policy is revenue-neutral but redistributive. It reallocates existing developer fees, prioritizing environmental justice and resilience in vulnerable neighborhoods. It does not impact the General Fund, nor does it require new taxation. However, long-term impact may include reduced flood-related recovery costs, lower strain on drainage infrastructure, and improved public health.

    Revenue generating, if so how?
    While the policy itself does not raise new revenue, investments in flood-mitigating parks can enhance nearby property values and encourage community revitalization, indirectly increasing tax revenues. Additional opportunities may include leveraging FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants or philanthropic funding tied to climate adaptation.

    Funding from within the General Fund?
    No. All funding is sourced through the existing Park and Recreation Dedication Fund.

    1. Public Engagement: Convene citywide engagement sessions to educate the public on the current Park Sector boundaries and funding mechanisms, and capture community feedback on what a more equitable system based on ecology may look like. 

    2. Ordinance Creation: Draft a City Ordinance that reshapes Park Sector boundaries along watersheds and pools no less than 30% of development impact fees be used for cross-sector uses.

    1. Axios Houston, “Advocates push for new Houston parks funding formula,” June 14, 2023. https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2023/06/14/houston-park-funding

    2. Houston Chronicle, “Houston deserves better parks. Here's how to pay for them,” Oct. 9, 2023. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/houston-parks-funding-18411672.php

    3. Ronda Chapman et al., Parks and an Equitable Recovery, a special report by Trust for Public Land (San Francisco: Trust for Public Land, May 27, 2021), accessed July 17, 2025, https://www.tpl.org/parks-and-an-equitable-recovery-parkscore-report. tpl.org+4

    4. Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Funding Houston’s Parks and Greenspace (Houston: Rice University, October 2, 2023), accessed July 17, 2025, https://kinder.rice.edu/research/funding-houstons-parks-and-greenspace.

    5. City of Houston Park Sector Fund Balance Reports, 2021–2023 (obtained via Council member briefings).

    6. GIS overlay analysis of HOLC redlining maps and current park sector boundaries (internal analysis by Ed Pettitt, 2023).

Policing

ICE and HPD

Cancel Flock - Protect the Privacy and Due Process Rights of Houstonians 

  • The City of Houston increasingly leans on a network of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to surveil the public in an effort to solve crimes.  In fact, Houston leads the nation in the deployment of ALPRs thanks to its contract with the controversial surveillance company, Flock Safety. The Whitmire Administration’s efficiency study touts the use of Flock cameras as part of the city’s public safety strategy.  

    Flock’s network of cameras collect data on us with scant oversight or regulation by City Council. The City should terminate its contract with Flock Safety, which gives HPD access to track private citizens movements through a web of over 80,000 cameras nationwide and over 3,800 cameras locally.  Instead of using contentious technology, HPD should rely on formal warrants and due process for obtaining information.

  • Data from Flock has been used to track a woman seeking an abortion in Texas and  immigrants in Houston.  The City of Houston is one of many local entities that uses the mass surveillance system, despite the fact that no current data suggests it has had a meaningful impact on case closure rate. Searches are saved within the Flock system for 180 days. Communities are surveilled at large, regardless of justice system involvement and database searches are typically done without a warrant or court order - raising serious concerns about Fourth Amendment violations.  In Oregon, leaders recently secured a commitment to restrict data reporting related to abortion or immigration. In Texas, leadership on this issue must come from local officials - Austin cancelled its contract in June of 2025. 

  • Cancelling the city’s contract with Flock wouldn’t eliminate all of the surveillance in Houston, but it would keep Houstonians safer from under-regulated mass surveillance technology and be a victory for due process.  There is precedent for walking away from policing technology - Mayor Whitmire has already promised to cancel the city’s Shotspotter contract.

  • City of Houston Efficiency Study, Office of Mayor John Whitmire,  February 2025

    HPD leans heavy on plate scanning cameras as technology steps in for staffing shortages Houston Chronicle, June 2025

    Houston police use a powerful surveillance tool to track vehicles. But they're not explaining why.  Houston Chronicle, June 2025

    Texas Police Are Running Constitutionally Questionable AI License Plate Searches for ICE, The Barbed Wire, May 2025

    Texas police used nationwide license plate reader network to track woman who had self-managed abortion, The Independent, May 2025 

    Flock camera CEO responds to scrutiny over how Houston police use surveillance technology. Houston Chronicle, June 2025. 

    Probe finds Houston police using surveillance tool, meant to deter crime, like a search engine, Texas Standard, June 2025

    Millions in Public Funds, Zero Public Input: Flock's Surveillance System Might Already Be Overseeing Your Community, Dropsite, August 2025  

    Flock Safety Defends Local Control As ICE Reportedly Uses ALPR Data Without Direct Agreement, Security Systems News, June 2025

    How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department’s Use of Flock’s Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers. American Civil Liberties Union, February 2023 

    Victory! Austin Organizers Cancel City's Flock ALPR Contract, Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 2025

    Flock Safety to block immigration-, abortion-related requests for license-plate reader data, Wyden says, Lookout Eugene Springfield, July 2025 

    Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional, 404 Media, October 2024

    ACLU calls on Providence City Council to Reject Intrusive Surveillance Technology, American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, March 2022