Expensive Expansion!

I recently commented on a post written by Cynthia Oviedo saying that I agreed with her in supporting the expansion of the MetroRail bus route. However, I just learned that the state is experiencing an approximate $27 billion financial shortfall. Texas is experiencing very difficult times in determining our new budget. This new information as well as Allison Garrett’s post has led me to change my mind about the MetroRail bus route expansion.

Allison starts by quickly making her stance on the issue very clear. She is in support of the expansion but puts emphasis on strategic timing. Allison then continues by mentioning that with our financial shortfall Texas “should be focused on cutting spending, and raising revenue, not expanding a transit system that relies on state funding.” I appreciate that she quickly chose her side of the fence on the issue because it helps me and other readers to grasp her opinions more easily. Also, her opinion is important because it helps me to understand her point of view as I continue reading and then allows me to choose to support or oppose her thoughts.

Allison mentions that “the transit would charge relatively high fees to use” but doesn’t provide an exact or estimated dollar-amount. I understand that exact numbers would be difficult to provide but if she would have provided estimates or old reports then it would have made her opinion more credible. It would have also helped to grasp the reader’s attention because numerical data always stands out.

Also, she mentions that driving is a cheaper option and I really do not agree with her here. Perhaps commuting may be cheaper for drivers of small and economic vehicles but that isn’t the case for all Austinites. Allison should have thought her statement out better to realize that the bus is a cheaper option for drivers of larger, gas-guzzling vehicles. This more-inclusive statement would illustrate that she has taken the time to think about the issue and has considered different points of view.

When Allison mentions that “the transit only averages 450-500 riders per day…” she took the time to provide a link to her source of information. I really appreciate this because it adds to her credibility and makes her opinion more dependable.

I definitely agree with Allison’s overall opinion that Texas should wait for our economy to stabilize before forking out millions of dollars to expand the MetroRail bus route. However, there were certainly statements that should have been better-worded to show that she considered different scenarios. However, I do wish that she would have provided me with more numerical data when mentioning the cost to board the bus to help me visualize the impact of our American dollar. Allison’s editorial was very interesting to read and she made very valid points in which she brought the budget to my attention when I had supposedly already decided to support the expansion. 

Patient-doctor relationships should be private!

There has been a proposed rule for the state’s Women’s Health Program that prohibits abortion counseling. The state wants to prohibit doctors that are affiliated with abortion providers from being part of the program and doesn’t want doctors referring patients to an abortion clinic, counseling women about an abortion, or providing patients with information about abortions.

The Texas Women’s Health Program provides low income women between the ages of 18 to 45 with screening for breasts, cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes, and high blood pressure. In addition, the program provides birth control and family planning counseling. The program was recently almost-entirely funded by the federal government but the state plans to pick up the tab.

Since I was raised Catholic, I find abortion to be an extremely complicated issue for ethical reasons and I have come to find that even with my religious background I still do not have a clear standing on the issue. However, I am approaching this issue as a breach of a should-be-private patient-doctor relationship and I am not going to dwell on abortion itself.

First off, I feel that this proposed rule will give the state control in an area that, as I previously mentioned, should be private. It is important for doctors to be frank and direct with their patients in order to establish trust. Therefore, conversations between doctors and patients should be protected and outside the jurisdiction of government interference.

Ultimately, doctor’s ethical rights are being violated and as a result, many doctors will refuse to participate in the program which will in turn result in its failure. If the state succeeds in applying this rule it could even be argued that it is a violation on a doctor’s First Amendment rights. This would then lead to problems that could be avoided by either doing away with the rule in its entirety, making the rule extremely clear and specific, or making a few alterations to its provisions.

Patients should have the right to initiate a medical conversation with his/her doctor. It only makes absolute sense that someone who is seeking abortion information would pursue a doctor’s advice. Therefore, the rule should be altered to state that a doctor should only provide information and counseling about abortion if, and only if, the patient has initiated the conversation. This would be the best solution to the problem because the state is still limiting the flow of abortion information yet isn’t crossing the line too far by placing a complete road-block between the doctor and patient’s line of communication.

I'll ride with you Cynthia! (I'm commenting on my colleague's blog post on bus route expansion.)

As the driver of a gas-guzzler, I completely support Cynthia Oviedo’s post advocating the expansion of the Austin MetroRail route to urban areas. Cynthia mentions the buses encountering less traffic, having comfortable seating, along with cool and clean air conditioning with free wireless internet. Although I ultimately support the expansion of the bus route because of the benefits to the environment and saving money on gas, these accommodations definitely caught my attention and are a wonderful benefit to an already advantageous system of transportation.

Cynthia then goes on to mention that getting off at the Howard Station leaves you in a “deserted” area. Her defense to this situation is that people without a vehicle have no transportation from this station. Although this is a good point, I find that the fact that people have to “cross under MoPac” to get to a more populated area poses much danger to these pedestrians since Austin has a tremendous amount of traffic. This traffic is in turn filled with people, who in all honesty, are not paying close attention to the road.

Even though it is evident that Austin is growing by the increased amount of traffic, I really appreciate that Cynthia provided a link to the 2010 Census. This illustrates that she has taken the time to provide credibility to her statement which in turn reflects, to a small degree, her support for the expansion of the bus route. Anyhow, with a growing population, the city will respond by opening new schools and services to accommodate the public. The expansion of the bus route will be of great convenience to Austinites as well as to the city itself by decreasing highway congestion and minimizing our carbon footprints.

I appreciate that before closing her argument, Cynthia provided information about where the expansion of the bus route currently stands by informing us that ten miles have already been added to the bus route. I look forward to the continued expansion of the bus route to, as I have already mentioned in agreement with Cynthia, decrease traffic and pollution as well as to be of great convenience to Austin’s growing population. 

Bad Bag Ban

On Friday, March 2, 2012, the Austin City Council passed a bag ban. This will ban disposable paper and plastic bags at all retail checkout counters beginning next year in March 2013.  Only reusable bags, those made of durable material, thicker paper, and plastic bags with handles will be offered by retailers and those who do not follow the new ordinance must face being charged with a class C misdemeanor.

The Austin City Council plans to launch a $2 million education campaign to enlighten customers of the provisions the new ordinance entails as well as to distribute reusable grocery bags for free in low-poverty areas of the city to lessen the burden on the poor.

While I do understand that bags often end up as litter on the side of the road and parks thus becoming harmful to the environment, I do not support the bag ban for several reasons.

The most prominent issue I have with this new ordinance is the $2 million that are going to be spent to teach Austinites how to follow the law. Retailers will put signs up to remind us to bring and use our reusable bags. Who’s going to pay for those signs? Will the costs of the new ordinance lead retailers to increase the costs of products and food to make up for their expenses to carry out the provisions of the bag ban?

The second issue I have with this new ordinance is sanitation. Employees will be touching hundreds, even thousands, of reusable bags per day and we know they won’t be washing their hands in between transactions. This can lead to the rapid spread of germs or cross-contamination of food.

My third issue is that some customers will inevitably forget to bring their reusable bags to the store. It is highly unlikely that the retailer will turn forgetful customers away. This means that customers will be walking out of stores with their purchased items unbagged. This will certainly lead to confusion and I think that a more significant consequence is that there may be an increase in shoplifting. Retailers will be forced to have their employees stationed at every exit to thoroughly check receipts. This will certainly result in aggravated customers and simply running to the grocery store will become a much more complicated and time-consuming errand.

My fourth and final issue with this bag ban is that plastic bags are used by many people and organizations. People often recycle plastic bags in their homes to be used as trash can liners and to clean up after pets. Many organizations that serve to clean our communities use them to reduce environmentally harmful litter.

As previously stated, I do not support the bag ban because it seems to lead to more problems than it solves. A better alternative would have been to enforce Austinites to recycle. This way money will be spent to teach them an extremely valuable practice instead of teaching them to follow the law. 

New Policy: Written Consent for Vehicle Searches

             Writtenconsent to search is progress was published on Monday, July 23, 2012. The editorial informs Austinites that beginning next month, “Austin police will have to obtain written permission before searching a vehicle.” At the moment, officers “ask verbal permission before conducting a search.” The editorial then introduces a racial issue by stating that “Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo announced the new policy after a report by the Office of Police Monitor that black and Hispanic drivers were searched more often than whites.” According to American-Statesman Patrick George, “one in eight traffic stops involving a black driver resulted in a search” and 1 of 10 traffic stops involving Hispanic drivers were searched. “White drivers were searched in 1 of 28 traffic stops according to the police monitor’s report.”

             I have pulled the previous statements straight from the editorial in order to put a summary together. However, the statements I chose also add credibility to the editorial because they illustrate that the author is not only throwing statements at us but has provided us with sources for his/her information. The statement with numerical data really grasps the reader’s attention and shows that the author took the time to do research, which again adds credibility to the editorial.

            In response to the racial issue, Austin Police Chief Art “was quick to wave away any suggestions that the results could be indicative of racial profiling. Stepped up police work in high-crime areas means more activity in neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities.” Unfortunately, the author introduced the racial issue but failed to provide any further details or opinions which left me very unsatisfied. I feel as though the editorial is incomplete because he/she didn’t address this issue.  

            One of the only opinions that the author offers is that “The new policy is not radical because officers can ask for a signature authorizing a search as easily as they now ask verbal permission.” The author has failed to see the importance of the new policy which is not to make searching a vehicle more difficult but to protect the ambiguous nature of verbal consent from negatively affecting law enforcement or the citizen. For example, my uncle is in law enforcement and has had several complaints filed against him claiming that he searched vehicles without permission. Fortunately, he has been able to defend these claims with video and audio surveillance. Written consent will hopefully convey the importance of the issue at hand by grasping the attention of the citizen and will reinforce citizens’ rights because the form will remind them that they have the right to refuse the search unless there is probable cause. I am aware that written consent won’t get citizens off the hook for vehicle searches, which I wouldn’t support anyway, but I am glad that the game will no longer be played as he-said-she-said as it has been for my uncle. 

Austin Property Tax Increase

            An editorial named Pull back on rapid tax increases is aimed to alarm taxpayers in Austin with the hopes of motivating them to push for answers about why their property taxes are increasing. The editorial states that “solutions for managing costs start with telling the public the truth about their taxes.” This powerful statement illustrates the frustration that the author has with city officials. The author then supplements his/her aggravated statement by throwing large numbers into the equation, a great way to attract his/her audience’s attention. Numbers always make me skeptical because there are so many ways that they can be misconstrued. Fortunately, the author provided the sources for his/her numerical information with the following, highly appreciated, statements: “according to a study conducted by Eben Fodor, a national land-use expert” and “The data regarding tax increases did not come from City Hall, county government or the school district, but rather from an American-Statesman analysis reported by Marty Toohey.”

            Like I previously mentioned the article is intended to alarm Austinites about their unexplained property tax increases. The author wastes no time in captivating his/her audience’s attention by providing numerical data. The author then offers a better understanding to these numbers by giving his/her audience a collective reason as to why their property taxes have been raised. The following sentences are only a few of the statements that the author provided to explain the numbers he/she has thrown into the mix: “It’s also clear that all five taxing jurisdictions share responsibility for the rising tax burden. In the past decade, Austin Community College raised its property taxes 184 percent; Travis county increased by 46 percent; the City of Austin charged 44 percent more…” These statements are very important to the credibility of the editorial because it shows that the author isn’t simply making claims about property tax inflation but has done the proper research and can intellectually provide insight as to why property taxes are being increased.

            As a young adult who has never owned any taxable property, it is somewhat difficult for me to understand the true monetary significance of this editorial. Then again, I never realized how expensive gas was until I started driving and paying for the gas myself. However, I agree with the author’s overall opinion that “our elected officials take a hard look at the facts, not that they’re on the table, and begin telling the public the unvarnished truth about growth, taxes and costs.” The author offers a multitude of opinions and solutions to property tax increases. I do not agree with several of his/her solutions especially that school districts should use their reserved money to help reduce property taxes. I do admit that my opposition on this potential solution is strongly influenced by my support for education since I am currently a student. Ultimately, I agree that Austinites are entitled to know why their property taxes are being increased and where exactly their money is going. 

Texas is Spending $500 Less per Student on Average

PolitifactTexas published an article on Thursday, April 26^th, 2012 regarding the alarming school budget cut statement made by state representative Donna Howard at a Texas Capitol rally. “Speaking to the crowd gathered to advocate for more public school support,” Howard decided to call “out those officials who have said the state has increased its aid to school districts” (PolitiFact). Howard then continued by declaring that the state is now “spending on average $500 less per student” (PolitiFact). Deeper investigation into the already disturbing $500 figure reveals that since money isn’t equally divided amongst public school districts, some schools’ budget cuts are even greater than $500 per student.        

This article is of great importance because public school funding is an area that the Legislative Budget Board should try their absolute hardest not to reduce. It is clear that the economy is not in good standing but education is important considering that Texas education is already behind when compared to other states in the U.S. Also, bearing in mind that the students that are currently in school will someday lead the nation makes the budget cut even more frightening.