Cities and Twitter; Accounts and Followers for the 50 Most Populous US Cities

Twitter has solidified itself not only as a social media platform for personal communication, but as a way to communicate news quickly and effectively. Most municipalities across the United States have followed suit, creating their own Twitter handles to disseminate information. Most cities use Twitter to communicate official press releases, city services, special events, or items passed by each city's council or governing body.

Twitter gives residents the ability to interact with their city officials easier than before. Unfortunately, there is a veil of secrecy that can still exist with Twitter accounts. It's certainly not the same as calling or actually visiting an official or department within a local government. But Twitter can provide another way for cities and residents to join in on conversations about what is happening within city limits. Given the limited characters in Twitter's platform, conversation between cities or officials and residents is normally informal and more approachable than conversation that might take place at a council meeting.

Some have even suggested that we may be able to use data from social media, specifically Twitter, to better plan our cities. Justin Hollander, director of Tufts University Urban Attitudes Lab, says that social media provides us "key words and sentiments about civic issues, in order to learn more about what people think about their cities, and how policy can respond."

Using the City of San Francisco's 311 department as an example, a blog from the World Bank website (written by Tanya Gupta and Dr. Abir Qasem) lists five reasons why Twitter has advantages over phone calls or written citizen inquiries:

1. City services can become more transparent.
2. Information is instant: You don't have to go to a website, you don't have to call, you don't have to wait in line; if you have a comment to make you can do it right away.
3. Creation of virtual communities can improve governance.
4. Transparency can lead to improved accountability of public officials and departments .
5. Participation can improve governance; when you have a chance to be a participant in the governance process, it makes a difference in how you view the city.

The Texas Big Six 2040 - Planning For Texas' Largest Cities

It's not often that you can gather leaders in a particular field from each of a state's largest cities. You might get them all in one place, but they probably won't all sit down and talk about a common issue. Well, the Houston Chapter of the American Planning Association has done just that. On Friday, November 21, 2014, city planning and development leaders from Texas' largest cities will gather at Texas Southern University for a day-long workshop and panel discussion to discuss each city's plans, policies and projects that will continue to "shape the livability, resiliency, and competitiveness" of each city and their surrounding regions.

The Texas Big Six 2040 workshop and panel will feature planning and development directors from each of Texas' largest cities; Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso. Each of the panelists will provide presentations about how their cities and region will grow into "livable, desirable world-class places that sustain the health, vitality, and happiness of residents, businesses, and visitors." A portion of the event is also planned to be used for a question and answer period including all of the panelists. It should be an opportunity to learn about what each city is doing in the way of planning, but the chance to hear raw questions from the audience should prove to be the most worthwhile component.

It's no secret that Texas' cities are among the fastest growing in the country. Texas is gaining population so quickly, and as a result its cities are continually ranked at the top of all those "top places" lists, whether it's job growth, moving rates, U Haul destinations (in 2013 Houston ranked first, San Antonio fifth, and Austin sixth), or Creative Class population. Take it for what you will, but even Business Insider presented 18 Facts that Make Houston The Best City In America earlier this year. You name a category and a Texas city is likely to be a front runner, for better or worse. Without question, people are paying attention to Texas cities (even though some see Texas cities as B-List cities, not up to snuff with the likes of New York, L.A., Chicago or Boston).

Silos - Flickr

We're benefiting from a collection of growing industries, predominantly oil and gas and healthcare, as well as the ancillary engineering and support services that go with them. It's estimated that three out of four new jobs in Texas through 2040 will be within one of these six largest cities or its metropolitan area. The "Creative Class" population is growing not just in Houston, but in other Texas cities as well. Houston saw the biggest gain in Creative Class movers (ranking second behind Washington, DC), while Dallas came in sixth, and Austin twelfth.

Most of Texas is also blessed (or maybe cursed?) with a geography that allows cities to continue to expand into the horizon. There are few natural barriers to consider in urban (errr, should I say suburban?) development and, as evidenced here in Houston, land is being gobbled up for subdivisions at a rapid pace.

With this change in population, as well as overall growth in population, major planning decisions need to be made regarding housing, transportation, resiliency and sustainability. This is something Texans can no longer ignore. The public may ignore the complexity and interconnectedness of our cities, but our elected leaders and local government cannot.

There's much to be discussed. Texas is struggling with exceptional drought in many areas. All of our cities rank pretty poorly in terms of having the worst traffic, and building more freeways (or toll roads) hasn't helped. With some exception of Dallas's DART, our public transit systems (especially rail and bus rapid transit) have plenty of room for improvement when compared to cities of similar sizes. Our cities are rapidly aging (population and infrastructure), and there will be a great deal of older residents that must be served. And, for as affordable as people think Texas housing is, our cities are increasingly becoming prohibitively expensive for many long-time residents and many new comers.

Traditionally in Houston there has been a hesitancy to allow long range planning to take place. In most other Texas cities you don't have this issue. (In fact, Houston City Council just approved appropriations this week to continue with our city's General Plan.) Whether it is simply the distrust of government or the staunch desire to maintain property rights, Houston has been hostile to planning. But, given Houston's continued growth, loss of tax revenue, and difficulty in providing needed infrastructure improvements, we may not be able to ignore a more holistic approach to planning our city. When we look at our city's (and state's) changing demographics, is it so far-fetched that people may actually desire a greater amount of long range, interconnected planning processes?

As the Creative Class continues to grow here in Texas, as people move from other metros, and as millennials come to age and settle down, it's no doubt that people's preferences about what they value in terms of quality of life, will change. More people than ever want to live close to cities. It's certainly happening in Texas cities, with housing prices in our urban areas at an all time high. There's a residential boom in downtown districts that wasn't there even 10 years ago. To be able to respond to this increased demand on our cities and their ability to provide essential services, coordination and communication are key. Not only among each city's departments, but between different cities.

There are also many things that we can learn from other cities. We cannot discount the successes of other cities, and we cannot overlook policies and practices that may not have proven to be successful in others. Houston, certainly, is in no position to be an overall authority on successes of urban development, but we can continue to learn from others and adopt practices to allow Houston, and other Texas cities, to continue to grow.

I like to look to Toronto on many issues, especially because of the leadership of Toronto's Chief Planner, Jennifer Keesmaat. On her Own Your City blog, she recently discussed The Future of Urban Planning, and the need for more of it as our cities continue to grow. Keesmaat says;

Urban planning has a significant impact on some of the most important challenges that society is facing today. We have the opportunity to make people’s lives better  – or not – and to improve quality of life – or not.

Every single day I’m challenged by the work that I do. I’m constantly learning. I’m always also meeting interesting people who broaden my understanding of the world. City planning, in many ways, is at the heart of a democratic society. Think about it – how we plan our cities is about how we negotiate living together. Have you ever lived with someone? It can be pretty tricky.  This is why city planning is a complex discipline that is technical, political, and artistic all at the same time. It is often about brokering deals for our shared future. It is also about figuring out what we’re going to share or not share, what we value, and the kind of legacy we want to leave for future generations.

It'd be foolish to expect immediate effects as a result of a single workshop and panel discussion. But in an age where we desire to "tear down silos" between departments within organizations, why not start to tear down of silos between cities themselves? I am looking forward to attending and learning what the other five largest Texas cities are planning for and how they're doing it. I look to providing some thoughts from the event, and to further the dialogue of how Texas' largest cities can continue to support one another as we work to provide the best quality of life for our residents as possible.

More information can be found on the Houston APA website, and if you're interested in attending you can sign up to attend the event here.

The Texas Big Six 2040 Event Page

Fri, Nov. 21, 2014

8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Texas Southern University - Barbara Jordan / Mickey Leeland School of Public Affairs

Houston, Texas

Houston: The Adolescent City

Recently, people have struggled to describe Houston, to give it an identity.

We've got a new slogan that touts Houston's endless possibilities, but that can also evoke thoughts of our seemingly endless suburban sprawl. Houston used to be "Space City, USA", but now the space program faces colossal cutbacks. We still house NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, but its role has been cut back drastically.

Houston used to be more widely known as "Clutch City", a description of the dramatic fashion in which the Houston Rockets won their 1994 and 1995 NBA Championships. But, the Rockets haven't been the same team since, so that one's lost its descriptive luster.

Houston's also known as the "Bayou City". And, even though Houston was founded on the banks of the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo bayous at Allen's Landing, it hasn't been until recently that the city or its citizens have understood the value of the city's bayous. They've got much greater value than simply being utilized as channels to collect the runoff from our suburban sprawl.

In the 1900's we were once named "The Magnolia City", but many of our magnolia trees were plowed under as our city grew.  Our oil economy afforded us the name "The Capital of the Sunbelt" in the 1970's. Due to our mass of oil and gas companies, we're also known by some as the "Energy Capital of the World."

Culturally, Houston has been called "H-Town". Hip hop and rap music fans know our city as "Screwston", in tribute to DJ Screw's "Chopped and Screwed" style.

The city of Houston's seal was influenced by our railroad heritage, but that seems to be something long forgotten. We've got no nickname for our history in that arena, and our utilization of rail in our city leaves us on the other side of the tracks of our heritage, and when compared to other large US cities. We've also imitated the moves of a bunch of other peer cities, and took out some pretty neat street car systems.

Houston has always done its own thing and wanted to doing things "uniquely Houston", whatever that is supposed to mean.That's why we might be best suited to call Houston "The Adolescent City".

Downtown People Movers; Houston's People Mover Past

A few weeks ago METRO Houston board member Christof Spieler posted some pictures from a recent trip to Detroit. Like any visitor to Detroit, Mr. Spieler commented on the misunderstood and seemingly useless Detroit People Mover. It only takes a few minutes to ride the 2.9 mile loop through Downtown Detroit, but it gives you an opportunity to see different parts of Downtown Detroit, and it actually makes downtown navigation quite easy if you're headed to a concert or sporting event, especially in those cold Michigan winters. It has a certain understated charm.

Given my Metro Detroit roots, nothing gets me riled up like criticisms of Detroit. Not to be misunderstood, the People Mover is probably one of the biggest blunders in public transit history. It's both loved and hated by Detroiters, and is even the subject of a Down With Detroit T-shirt. Captions from Down With Detroit detail Detroit's "Misguided attempt at being a major city, instead of putting light rail, we got a tour guide style monorail, only useful if you are going in a circle downtown." But Detroit may have just happened to be on the bad side of transit history luck. It surely wasn't the only city that applied for a Downtown People Mover (DPM).

As chronicled in this 2011 City Lab post from Eric Jaffe, Detroit was just one of the approximately 70 cities that applied for federal funding to build a people mover system in the early 1970's. Jaffe notes that "The idea for the people mover emerged in response to amendments in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, which called on the housing and urban development agency to encourage new systems of urban transportation that will carry people and goods within the metropolitan area speedily, safely, without polluting the air, and in a manner that will contribute to sound city planning." In 1966, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) was created, and it became responsible for developing new forms of transit.

The UMTA outlined some major goals in their DPM assessment:

(1) to test the operating cost savings which automated transit
systems might deliver;  

(2) to assess the economic impact of improved downtown circulation
systems on the central city; and  

(3) to test the feasibility of surface or elevated people movers
both as feeder distributors and as potential substitutes for
certain functions now performed by more expensive fixed guide-
way systems, such as subways.

"Tomorrow's Transportation: New Systems for the Urban Future" was a 1968 report that intended to ease the transit problems of Americans who live in or commute to cities. A DPM was just one of the recommendations made in the report, along with the seemingly Jetson-like personal rapid transit proposal, personal capsules, and the moving belts. We can be thankful that many of the report's findings never made it any further.

What resulted were proposals for DPM's from some of America's largest cities. The UMTA received and selected proposals from Los Angeles, St. Paul, Minnesota, Cleveland and our very own Houston. These were the four cities that were to receive federal funding to build a people mover system in their downtown. But a short time later Houston and Cleveland withdrew their applications, and St. Paul voters turned down the project. Miami and Detroit were chosen as alternate cities, and were the only two projects to result in built people movers.

Houston's People Mover Past

What would a Downtown People Mover have looked like here in Houston?

The City of Houston's 1976 proposal to the UMTA called for a 1.09 mile system, composed of 2.25 lane miles of track bisecting the "heart of the downtown core", stretching from the Cullen Center to the Harris County complex. It was intended to be fully owned, operated, planned and financed by the City of Houston, and was said to garner "strong and wide local support".

As one of the four cities chosen for the DPM program, the system was "viewed locally as a highly visible first step to improve public transit in Houston", and it was expected to be the central element of a city transit system.  Houston was reported to receive approximately $33 million to build their people mover, hoping it would "serve a rapidly expanding market for internal daytime circulation trips, and would stimulate new growth and development in the older north end of the city."

In the original proposal, the DPM was expected to attract 24,000 ADT, or over 20,000 passengers per system mile. To gain some perspective, Houston's METRO rail 12.8-mile Red Line carries about 41,000 riders per weekday in 2014, or approximately 3,200 riders per mile per day. These ridership estimates seem wildly optimistic, especially for circulation in such a small area. By 1985, the project was intended to service 8.5 million riders per year, or an average of just over 33,000 trips per day, with an estimated 74 percent of those trips being made going to and from work.

A major aspect of the DPM proposal was how a "DPM can act as a distributor for regional bus transit." It was an objective of the "City's transit program to intercept automobile traffic in the suburbs or to provide direct express service rather than to encourage auto use in the downtown." For those that currently work in Downtown Houston, we all know that these goals were not met.

Proposed route maps show eight stations starting at the Cullen Center, and extending clockwise to the Allen Center, the former Foley's Department Store, the Bank of the Southwest Building at 919 Milam, to the Pennzoil Building and Jones Hall, a North Main Terminal near Market Square, and looping over to the Harris County Courthouse, and back down to the Exxon Building before returning back to the Cullen Center.

The City of Houston contracted Sperry Systems Management and Howard R. Ross Associates to put together a preliminary report for a people mover. The report set out to "review some of the transportation problems facing downtown Houston", "discuss how a people mover could alleviate problems of access and circulation, and could interface effectively with downtown stations of the rail transit system when built."

The report contains a variety of possible people mover routes, with one route extending north and south along both Main and Smith, looping between Prairie and Pease, and another route extending from east to west generally along Dallas and Walker, looping just to the west of US-59, through what is now Discovery Green and the George R. Brown Convention Center. It is noted that the routes are for illustration only, but that these routes provided an extended range for lunchtime shopping and dining. And, with the availability of a climate controlled-circulation system, riders would not be limited by fatigue and discomfort.

Some of the most interesting content of the preliminary report is the projected transit use in Houston. The plan recognized that Houston, and the downtown core in particular, would see continued growth in the number of trips taken by commuters. The preliminary report notes that only about 35 percent of the anticipated growth in trips would be able to be absorbed by the freeway system. The report made a claim that by 1990, transit must account for 40 percent of the trips to and from the downtown area.

Source: 2013 Central Houston Commute Survey 

According to the 2013 Central Houston Commute Survey Report, this is in stark contrast to conditions now as nearly 57 percent of workers in Downtown Houston drive into work alone, and another 9 percent use some sort of car pool or van pool. That means that 68 percent of Downtown Houston workers are arriving to work in a vehicle. This falls well short of the projected transit goals laid out in the preliminary people mover report. The 2013 Central Houston report actually concluded that a greater number of people drove along in 2013 than in 2009, as "More downtown workers drove alone, and fewer chose public transit, vanpools, or carpools."

In 1978 steps were made to create an interim regional transit authority, following provisions by Texas State Legislature. Immediately after its formation, the authority put together what was called the "METRO Plan", highlighting near-term and long-term transit improvements in the region. As a result of the authority's planning, the Houston Office of Public Transit decided that the DPM plan should take a backseat. Finally, on August 12, 1978, Houston area residents voted to create the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). METRO's board of directors "determined that the function of the DPM had to be re-examined in the light of the new regional transit authority committed to implementation of the METRO Plan."

The DPM was no longer viewed as the focal point for transit within Houston. It might, at best, simply be an integral part of a regional transit system. What resulted was a Downtown Mobility System (DMS) Study. This study still considered the DPM as part of what was called Automated Guideway Transit, as well as the birth of Bus Priority Systems, which impact on Houston's traffic today.

On July 16, 1979, the METRO board voted unanimously to withdraw from the UMTA's Downtown People Mover program. The board noted that bus priority systems and reserved transit lanes would be more cost effective than any Automated Guideway System, and that other activity centers within the city would have more severe traffic congestion, and would require some form of automated distribution system in the future. (This clearly never happened!)

The METRO board felt that they should give up their DPM program status to allow cities with more pressing needs to take advantage of the program, and wanted to give increased consideration to focus on transit options that complemented the Main Street Transit Mall, which was a result of the METRO board's Downtown Mobility Study. Main Street was intended to be constructed as a four-lane, bus-only, facility. The board also felt that a DPM-like system "may well be appropriate at another time in the CBD, or in other Houston activity centers where Bus Priority Systems would be more difficult to implement." The Main Street Mall was intended to have capacity for at least 150 regional express buses per hour.

I am glad that the Main Street Mall project never materialized and limited traffic to buses, although this is somewhat the current state of Main Street, as this is METRO's Red Line light rail route. On that day the METRO board bolstered regional transit in the name of local downtown circulation. A downtown people mover would be a unique element in Houston's already interesting streetscape, and something else that gives Houston its unique nature. Some renderings in the preliminary report are quite interesting. Image having arrived at Foley's in a train on an elevated track. (In the renderings it also looks like DPM cars would have been pushed away from the track into loading bays depressed into the second floor of Foley's.)

In the past Houston has never been one to aggressively pursue alternative forms of transportation, given the influence of oil companies here in Houston, much like the auto manufacturer's influence in Detroit. But this was probably one transit project that we can be glad was never built, at least in terms of function. METRO's Greenlink bus service essentially provides the same service as a people mover would have, but likely without the same service times, and at a much lower cost, with almost no added infrastructure. It also covers most of the same ground that several of the routes in the Houston people mover's preliminary report.

Transportation Sec. William Coleman, right, looks at plans for Downtown People Movers in five U.S. cities in 1976. (AP Photo/Harvey Georges)

But, I can't help but think that Houston may have missed out on having a unique form of transit within its downtown. As is the case with Detroit's cold winter weather, a system like this would certainly be a comfort for downtown workers and visitors in Houston's extreme heat. It sure would have made for a much better conversation piece than our current clogged (during rush hour!) downtown streets, and would allow people to traverse the city above ground and at street level, as opposed to through Houston's tunnel system. Now that the METRO rail is almost complete, it's not too late to add this to Houston's transit wish list!

__________________________________________________________

Below is a collection of snapshots (I apologize for any poor quality photos) of the City of Houston's proposal for the Downtown People Mover program proposal, as well as supporting documents, including the Preliminary Report for a People Mover System for downtown Houston, and the preliminary engineering grant application. Finally, captures of the METRO Houston Downtown Mobility Survey are included. All items are available for view at the Houston Metropolitan Research Center (HMRC), located within the Julia Ideson Library in Downtown Houston.

City Council in Houston; 50 Most Populous U.S. Cities

In the midst of the City of Toronto mayoral fiasco involving embattled Mayor Rob Ford, I started to watch clips of Toronto's City Council meetings. They were a highlight reel of laughs and distractions, yet there was still valuable work that got done. There seemed to be a palpable amount of tension and spirited debate, making things much more exciting than typical U.S. council meetings, and especially those here in Houston. I'm pretty sure that nothing like this would ever happen here in Houston (although sometimes I think that all cities would benefit from a little fun at their city council meetings):

Nonetheless, as I continued to watch Toronto's city council meetings, I started to compare Houston and Toronto in terms of their councils, then began to expand my comparison to other major cities. It led me to abandoning Toronto as a comparison city, focusing instead on comparing the councils of the 50 most-populous cities in the United States. See How Houston compares at the bottom of the page.

(DISCLAIMER: When I started this venture, I was unaware of the existing 2011 study of city councils by Pew Charitable Trusts, City Councils in Philadelphia and Other Major Cities. I did not use any of the data contained in this document, but some of the data comparisons are similar.)



Curiosity arose regarding the number of council members of other cities, the number of people they serve and the amount of area that their districts cover. I also wondered about each city's term limits, whether there were council members that served at large, or whether they solely elected members for given districts. Another small curiosity was whether or not the council members faced the public or faced an officiant during their hearings. At this point throughout my municipal experience I feel that when elected officials and public servants face those that they serve, they foster a more engaging environment for public involvement and input. (New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Cleveland and Nashville each have councils that face a council president or speaker, not the public they serve. I understand this is most likely due to the local form of government.) It's quirky, but nonetheless, a dynamic of civic involvement and trust.



As I looked at councils around the country, I documented the number of city council members, excluding mayors. A judgement was made that most mayors do not serve a particular district (any corrections to this data are welcomed), even when having voting power within their city council. The number of districts within a city were documented, as well as the number of any at large council members. It was also important to know the population and physical area of each city, which allowed for a few different comparisons to be made. (Austin, Texas is approaching elections in 2014 that will expand the number of council members to 10, each serving one district; statistics already reflect this change.)

When you think of these data sets and how they may relate to Houston, or any city for that matter, it creates many questions, and should beg comparison to other cities. Houston should not be in a position to be afraid to adopt practices from other cities, or be close-handed regarding changes to how its council functions in order to give its citizens the best representation possible and its council members an appropriate amount of time to complete projects without worry of running for reelection. You see a similar climate in collegiate athletics, where alumni, fans and administration demand instant results on the field or court without coaching staffs being afforded the ability to recruit their own players. The same holds true for local elected officials. They need to know who they're working with, and how to best achieve their preferred outcomes. Yes, terrific coaches can win games, and terrific chefs can prepare culinary masterpieces with what they are presented with (think Iron Chef), but for continued success, there must be an intimate understanding of how your team or entity matches against other competitors.

Should Houston institute a four-year term for its elected officials?

2014, Kinder Institute

Before a council member is elected, they have spent nearly a year campaigning, and by the time they learn how the city bureaucracy functions, they are back on the campaign trail to ensure they will be re-elected that next year! It is an undue burden for all of our political leaders, even if you disagree with their political position and motivations. Two years is not enough time to complete quality projects in Houston, as by the time council members develop a project or ordinance amendments, they begin to approach reelection, and must devote their time to other endeavors. At this point, a city council member must wait until their second council term to garner major support for any project. This seems like a large amount of time that could be spent on constituent relations within the second year of the council member's first term. Because of this continual election cycle projects or proposals can sit in the balance because of a lack of time to gain support or political backing.

During the annual Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey, Dr. Stephen L. Klineberg and his staff compile responses to various questions regarding the political, physical, social, and educational aspects of the Houston region. One question that continues to reveal support for longer local office terms explores "Attitudes Toward Term Limits On City Of Houston Elected Officials." 73 percent of those surveyed were in favor of continuing term limits, while the support for two 4-year terms rose to 49 percent in 2014 (page 16). Houstonians are clearly realizing the importance of longer terms. Only six of the 50 most populous U.S. cities have council terms of two years. Austin, Texas has council terms of three years, leaving only seven cities to have terms less than four years. Out of those seven, four are Texas cities; Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Fort Worth.

Should Cities Redraw City Council Boundaries?

Houston City Council Districts

Fans of the Disney movie The Mighty Ducks might remember what happened with the redistricting of District 5 in the Minnesota Youth Hockey League. District 5, which was the team's name at the time, acquired Adam Banks, won a few games, and made the playoffs for the first time in years. That's a stretch of an example, but there may be many positives that come from modifying district boundaries in a city, or having additional districts created for residents. The feasibility of this happening in Houston is riddled with political and demographic considerations and elaborate requirements for district characteristics. But, council districts with a more manageable number of residents can allow council members to dedicate a greater amount of time and energy in creating more intimate relationships with residents. A more manageable geography alone should be persuasive enough to considering changing council boundaries. In looking at Houston's districts, they act as a "pinwheel" of sorts, with downtown Houston acting as a vertex of sorts, with districts reaching out from Downtown.

In Houston's Council District E, Councilman Dave Martin, or one of his staff members, could spend nearly an hour and drive over 50 miles to get from one side of the district from NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center for a morning meeting to Kingwood's Hidden Hollow Elementary School to speak about civics to elementary school students. Aside from being inconvenient for city representatives to drive regularly, it is also far too long a distance for residents at one end of the district to have similar concerns as those 50 miles away.





Austin, Texas recently changed its city charter to allow for ten council districts, represented by one member, as well as a city-wide election for mayor. This is very similar to Houston's council election procedure, however,  council members in Austin will serve approximately half of the number of citizens compared to council members in Houston. The City of Austin constructed a website to address the council boundary and redistricting process. The City of Houston conducted a similar process in 2011, creating two additional districts, giving the city 11 districts. The City of Houston has a set of criteria and rules for drawing districts, spelled out on the city's Planning and Development Department's website.





As Houston and other cities continue to grow, there will need to be continued consideration given to adding council districts and councilors. That is the only way to ensure that services are rendered properly to residents and that the voices of residents are heard by the rest of council.

When Houston added additional council districts in 2011, the population of the city was 2,126,196 residents. 2014 population estimates for the City of Houston reach 2,201,027 residents. This equates to a gain of 74,831 residents in a three-year span. If we can assume Houston continues its grown at the same rate, the city would need to add another council member to achieve the same level of current representation by 2016. There is nothing in the city's charter requiring any additional council members as the population grows. Houston would end up much like Los Angeles in the size and population of their council districts. (There are currently 131,266 residents represented per council member in Houston).

How Does Houston Compare in Council District and Council Member Population?

Compared to cities of similar population size, Houston sits behind only the City of Los Angeles for the number of people that are represented per council district, and ranks sixth in the number of people per council member, taking into account Houston's five at-large council members. As these numbers indicate, Houston's council members have a large constituent population to attend to. Often, a city's population will forget that at-large council members function in the same capacity as those representing districts, and are most likely underutilized by residents with district-specific concerns.

City Councilor Salaries

Would cities and their councils be able to attract a more diverse, higher skilled, and better prepared set of councilors if the office of city councilor paid a greater sum of money in most cities? Without a doubt, some cities offer more than a fair compensation for the office of city councilor. However, many major cities have continued to offer a seemingly measly compensation for positions that continuously demand more and more accountability and responsibility, especially as our urban areas grow in population and physical size.

Why have cities made it a de facto requirement that city councilors must be retired or have flexible, full-time, high-paying jobs to accommodate the workload required of a councilor? By the nature of the position it may be very difficult for an educated, fairly common civic leader to even ponder serving as a councilor, as opposed to those who have a greater economic independence, or who are popular among specific populations, such as local celebrities or influential citizens, but may not have the educational background that is demanded of many city councilors today.

What can be done? Offer more money for councilor positions. the City of San Diego recently attempted to raise city council salaries, hoping to attract a greater range of leadership talent. (Their council ultimately voted against the salary increases.) With a plan like San Diego's there is an increased consideration of the character of council members due to their higher salaries. This creates a greater incentive for those who would then be able to support a family with a city council salary, and a greater incentive for citizens to elect representatives who may truly hold the office of councilor with esteem, as opposed to those who may be competing in a popularity contest. Right now the job of city councilor is so demanding that you'd need another full time job to better support a family with it, given that most salaries are so slow, and some positions are considered part time. The idea of increasing council salaries is becoming more accepted in cities, and is currently being considered in Honolulu, as councilor work is full-time, but their pay is thought of as part-time.

There seems to be a slight correlation between the salaries of council members and the quality of life, travel opportunities, leisure amenities and business climate ranking. Using the Bloomberg and Businessweek 2012 rankings of the best American cities to compare against council salaries, there are obvious outliers. Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Chicago are getting a poor value for their expense on leadership compared to their  ranking, while cities like Nashville, Oklahoma City and Raleigh get a greater return on their council salaries compared to their ranking.



At the very least, it is interesting to consider the geographic and demographic characteristics that make up city council districts within Houston, and see how Houston's council compares to other U.S. and North American cities. Houston is a melting pot of different cultures and backgrounds, willing to adopt other people's point of view. It should be no different in our public administration, and determining what will best serve the city's citizens.

Houston City Council - How Does It Compare to Other U.S. Cities?

BEST OF CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS: (As a side: If you'd like some best-of city council highlights, I recommend watching a few clips from Detroit City Council as well. Former Detroit city council member Monica Conyers was known to provide some highlights, calling Ken Cockrel "Shrek", and then debating about it with 8th graders. Also, notable city council highlights include Steve Jobs' last television appearance before his death, as he presented Apple's campus plan to the City of Cupertino, California. And, what could make city council meetings any more appealing than dramatic music, paired with slow-motion close-up action shots of council members? Give this Whitehorse, Canada city council commercial a view.)

Houston's Front Porch: Why So Messy? Updated March 12, 2014

I love our city, and especially our city's governmental buildings and parks. Houston is blessed to have such a large system of parks, and should be the envy of many cities. For those working downtown, City Hall Plaza and Hermann Square provide an opportunity to admire our city's history and get a bit of fresh air.

This really is Houston's front porch! It should show the best we have to offer. (And it does, hosting festivals and regular events like the Urban Harvest Market on Wednesdays, as well as other more spontaneous sights, like the older gentlemen who regularly play baseball catch on the grass.) It also allows people to demonstrate their First Amendment rights. It is a space for all, and it is valuable to civility in Houston.

Over the last few weeks, however, it has been getting noticeably more messy. During my walk into work, as well as to and from lunch each day, it is hard to miss the group that gathers daily to spend their day around City Hall. Most people appear to be homeless or without normal work hours, simply spending time loitering for the entire day in Hermann Square or the area outside the Houston Public Library (UPDATE 3/12/2014: Sources tell me that within the last few weeks loitering is no longer being tolerated near the Houston Public Library, as the Houston Public Library Plaza is for library patronage only. Those loitering were told they would not be able to stay there, and would need to find somewhere else to go. It seems they have chosen Hermann Plaza.) Typically, these days seem to be spent without incident, but one can suspect this may be why there is such a large amount of refuse left in the park. These are areas for all, but there are also opportunities exercise the civility that the City of Houston encourages.

This morning (Tuesday, February 25, 2014), this is what Hermann Square looked like. This is not what our city's front porch should look like to welcome citizens, visitors and city employees. I don't know what should be done, but this saddens me that right under the shadow of City Hall, our parks are treated like this. Clearly, there are many violations of the City of Houston Parks and Recreation Department's rules and regulations.

This is an opportunity to extend grace to those who do not follow the law or respect the civility of our city or the public good of our parks. But, we should not tolerate this treatment of our public places. As someone who loves cities and the people they represent, I am aware of the impact that public spaces have on a city's reputation. City halls and government buildings are typically the "front porch" of most cities, and should be respected, serving as a comfort, welcoming to all.

EDIT: These photos have been added for the mornings of March 11, 2014:

 .....and March 12, 2014.