Houston Mayor seeks property tax hike for Harvey recovery

Houston is swampy and flat true but at the same time open swampland can hold far more water than pavement. Houston also in the past few years has suffered multiple 100 year rain events. So those standards are already insufficient.

Detention also works only works if they can eventually properly drain with so much more development it get's harder and harder to empty that detention even if each development are built for a 100 year rain event.

Yes it is difficult and prohibitively expensive to design for a 1,000 year rain event. That said there are many steps that could be taken to ameliorate the amount of flooding and make recovery easier.

You're pointing out problems with development that older parts haven't been upgraded as new development is built in areas that are negatively affect dealing with flooding. Houston's problems are driven by the development in that the planning is poor and infrastructure is woefully inadequate to keep up with new development.

 

I agree, however, when you are talking about new developments detention guidelines are in place to minimize impact to the downstream. In theory these detention ponds are designed to hold water and release it at pre-developed rates.

You can properly drain areas if you are draining them at pre-developed rates, which is what all detention ponds do. You don't install a discharge that allows the full flow of the 100-yr rain event, you just aren't allowed by design criterias. The way detention ponds are designed here in Houston is to slowly release the water at a pre-developed flow rate. So I disagree with you that it gets harder and harder to empty detention.

I'll let you know, I'm all for spending more money on drainage in this City. However, we need to step back and look at the areas that flooded. Some of the areas that flooded have continuously flooded throughout the years. It bugs the hell out of me that we keep rebuilding rather than be proactive and entirely remove homes that need to be bought out. Many of these homes are typically located in areas where people don't have the means to keep re-building, therefore, we need to pay for those people to relocate else where in the City. Some other areas have never flooded, however, the USACE knew they were vulnerable during a large rain event, like the homes in the reservoir areas. I find it pitiful if these homeowners truly were not made aware that their homes could flood during a catastrophic event. I'm not sure why we allowed development in those areas if knew there was a boundary where water would flood up to.

Once again, new developments (or re-developments) have to follow certain guidelines that minimize impacts to their neighbors. Hell, the City's last drainage update forced for re-developments within the City of Houston to account for detention of already developed areas. So I think the City has been proactive at trying to reduce flooding risk.

I'm not sure what planning may mean to you, but whenever the City decides to rebuild a project, flows for areas are typically assumed developed. I can understand how non-existent zoning can make designing storm sewers difficult in some areas. When drainage studies are put together, full development is assumed. Part of the problem is older developments that weren't design with detention in mind (this just didn't exist pre-1980s), so those tend to release full flows downstream, rather than detaining the flows of pre-development. Drainage is a complicated issue in this City.

I believe we need to widen more channels and that rebuild houston needs to continue reconstructing areas with poor drainage.

As far as designing for greater than 100-yr rain events, I find it hard to believe that those changes will be made. I'm all for upping the level of service engineers design for, however, I don't believe 500-yr rain events are realistic to design for.

 

There seems to be some confusion about this story. The city tax hike is for cleanup and repair of city equipment/facilities. It's the county that is in charge of flood control. The county sounds like they want to propose a sales tax to improve flood control.

 

But we would have more money for infrastructure today and over the last two decades if we weren't paying so much to pensions that we simply can't afford. While creating a separate fund is prudent, it's just shuffling the deck. This issue is affecting many cities and municipalities' budgets.

Lack of funding for flood mitigation and a hodge podge of local governments (city of Houston, unincorporated Harris county, Harris County, Sugar Land, Fort Bend County, etc.) has created a system that has made regional flood mitigation impossible.

Lastly it was land developers that pushed to develop on the Katy prairie and pushed the grand parkway toll road. We need another massive reservoir(s) in far west and northwest Houston.

 

No decks are being shuffled. This fund was intended for street and drainage projects. That was what the referendum that City of Houston citizens voted for. So this fund is a separate fund from everything else. I don't think it's enough as well, especially since the first few years of the fund was dedicated to repaying old debt from older projects.

Lack of funding is based on people voting for revenue caps and people not wanting to have their taxes increased. That's just the truth. I agree that our pension is bloated and I do wish we could dedicate some of this money for infrastructure projects, but sadly the pensions is money our previous administrations committed too and there is not much we can do here, so it will keep restricting our city budget.

I am all for another reservoir to reduce the threat of flooding downstream. Hopefully we find federal funding for this.

 

It would be an ambitious project but Houston should look at Amsterdam's Dikes and Canals system. Hire the Dutch engineers and immigrant labor to excavate all flooded/buyout areas into an extensive dike & canal system. Also excavate portions of existing thoroughfares to create a web of canals across the city. Do it in phases to manage costs. Would be practical and beautiful all at the same time.

 

People in Houston pay more property tax in last five years or so, as well as for more water bill, but what have been improved for infrastructure? They are going to waste the tax pay money for nothing.

 

From the rumor mongering in my neighborhood, it sounds like Harris County flood control believes the work that is still ongoing will, in a few more years, make a substantial difference. At least in the Brays Watershed. Don't know if I should share their optimism.

 

Agreed, but increased costs are factored into the decisions about how much, if any, a landlord increases the rent.

 

What will become of bought out houses?

Rocket River

 

Mojo man is so blindly anti-tax that he can't even comprehend the need for a temporary tax to help a city recover from a natural disaster.

 

Why don't you go post some facts about climate change or how rap music is making people violent.

 

I worked at a company called Rinker three years ago. It makes huge 10 ft by 10 ft culverts that move drainage under streets. They had just gotten a 15 year contra

Its owned by Cemex. Ive seen plenty of streets being paved and getting updated drain.

This all anecdotal but drainage in this event was much better than Allison which was a smaller event.

Just saying i think the city has addressed the subject as well as it could have.

I read an article in the Chronicle about ten years ago that said the way White Oak's and Braes's banks are paved was a huge mistake. It prevents the natural flow of the bayous