Don’t let the door hit you!

Editorial note: Noah M. Horwitz is not currently employed or contracting with any entities designating a conflict of interest on this topic.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Lyft, the popular taxi service based off of an app, will be ending its services in Houston just days before new laws go into effect regulating its operation. Since February, Lyft has operated illegally in Houston; however, Mayor Annise Parker’s administration tolerated the lawbreaking because she was sympathetic to their proposed changes to the vehicle-for-hire industry, along with those of their chief rival, Uber. In August, the City Council approved regulations largely accommodating Uber and Lyft into the marketplace. Technically, Lyft is still operating illegally, since the new rules do not go into effect until next week.

One of the provisions in the new law is that drivers for these so-called Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, can abstain from city-mandated background checks (ones that involve fingerprinting) for up to 30 days. This was done at the behest of Lyft lobbyists, as Uber doesn’t have a problem with these fingerprinting background checks. Now, Lyft is threatening to leave Houston unless the meager background provision is eviscerated entirely.

Lyft claims they do their own background checks, and that they are superior. Of course, from a municipal regulator’s point of view, I don’t see how secret checks could be evaluated or trusted; we are a little old to use the honor system for something like this. And given that Uber has no problem with the fingerprint background checks, it is obvious that this business model can sustain these types of checks.

Supporters of Lyft showed up en masse at City Hall today and attempted to lobby the City Council into relaxing the rules. Miya Shay, a reporter for KTRK, tweeted a picture of them loitering in the hallway. Personally, if there are people who are this vehement in opposing fingerprint background checks, they honestly freak me out a little bit.

From what I have heard, City Councilmembers are somewhat unenthusiastic about changing the rules, with some of them even pestered by this whole idea. Given how hard they fought over the rules this summer, I doubt many representatives — or the Mayor, for that matter — want to revisit this divisive issue. Additionally, even most of the tribalistic supporters of TNCs could probably not care less about this issue. If Uber is the favorite son of the new entrants into vehicles-for-hire, Lyft is the red-headed stepchild.

You know my overall opinion on TNCs, but I would hope that everyone could be behind background checks that include fingerprints. The risks are just too high otherwise. For the safety of everyone, the Council should stand firm on this issue.

Subpoenas droppped

Yesterday, Mayor Annise Parker finally agreed the drop the controversial subpoenas issued against clergy for supposed comments made regarding the recent Non-discrimination ordinance. I talked up this issue somewhat thoroughly a couple weeks ago when the subpoenas were first issued, so I do not think I will get into weeds of all that again.

First, the Parker administration narrowed the scope of the subpoenas to explicitly make the point that they wished to only cover topics directly related to the petition effort against the NDO, not any broad topics on the underlying issues. Still receiving derision from across the country, Parker and City Attorney David Feldman relented and dropped the subpoenas. However, as the Houston Chronicle noted today, religious and conservative leaders are still up in arms about the actions.

Litigators and others with some familiarity between the city and those religious leaders bringing suit against the city (please see previous post for more on that) will know that these subpoenas are fairly routine parts of the discovery process in a lawsuit. However, the ultra-religious, ironically those preaching hellfire and damnation against some others most obstreperously, are remarkably gifted at feigning outrage and phony persecution. If you ever dare to suggest that Churches stop impeding upon the state, they scream persecution and “War on Christmas” and all that hyperbolic silliness. Nick Anderson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist at the Chronicle, illustrated this very point better than I could write on it.

But, separate from what is legally correct, this whole issue was politically wrong. Actually, that’s an understatement, it was a political atrocity. Parker succeeded in awakening the angry conservative masses that had finally subsided following the “Summer of HERO.” She succeeded even in bringing attention to this delicate issue from all across the country. And the annoying way that the issue was fumbled led even left-of-center outlets to react skeptically to this whole production.

Make no mistake, a referendum will still probably be held on this ordinance. When that day comes, because of the Parker administration’s trigger-happy maneuvering, the contest to save the NDO will be even more uphill. National Republican groups will pour in money against the ordinance. And negative campaigns against Democrats have already started  by dredging up this issue.

I am still a steadfast supporter of this ordinance, which is what makes seeing this boondoggle unfold is all the more troubling. The most vociferous opponents against the NDO engage in slimy tactics; the proponents, particularly those in City Hall, should not sink to that level.

Parker subpoenas pastors

On Tuesday, the Houston Chronicle noted that Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman have subpoenaed the sermons of prominent pastors who have been a part of ongoing petition efforts against the local non-discrimination ordinance. The NDO, passed last May, prevents discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and other distinguishing features, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity. Those last two qualities garnered a great deal of controversy both before and after the Houston City Council passed the measure, even prompting a petition drive to force a referendum.

In a still controversial decision, city leaders disqualified most of the signatures provided, saying not enough valid voices signed against the ordinance to compel a referendum. Since then, litigation has been pending and a referendum is still quite possible in the future. I suppose that the city is now trying to cover its behind by proving many of the tactics exhibited by these pastors, who are legally required to remain apolitical, have been unlawful.

On Wednesday, however, Parker distanced herself from the subpoenas, calling them “overly broad” and regretting the incident was handled the way it was. As they likely realized right away, this little bout of theatrics did the Mayor and all supporters of the NDO no favors. In fact, it merely stirred the pot even more, riling up the same group that so vociferously opposed the ordinance and fought it throughout the summer.

National news and opinion sites have been quick to castigate Parker, and she has received 20 bits of negative press for every item of support thus far. Fox News didn’t look too kindly, nor did The Washington Times. Forbes Magazine wrote that the city has “a first amendment problem.” Meanwhile, a columnist for The Washington Post even opined that the whole exercise is a trampling of the first amendment. The whole story is so outrageous at first glance that Snopes.com even ran a feature on it.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Republican candidate for Governor, both made big stinks today as well against this decision.

As a matter of law, I don’t know that Parker did anything too egregious. But beyond the shadow of a doubt, as a matter of policy, it was a foolish move on her office’s part. Fire and brimstone clergy, particularly those who all too often bully others, are remarkably talented at feigning victimization. In a place as religious and conservative as Houston, picking a fight with them will always be a losing proposition.

Parker even noted in a press conference today that these are fairly well-famed pastors, with expansive followings both on television and online. The sermons are easily accessible through less intrusive means than a court order. The whole point of this exercise was for show, and in that department, Parker undoubtedly lost. I’m glad she has backed off from this, hopefully it can cause the press to move past it and focus on some real issues. Typically, on Wednesday nights, I recap the events of the Houston City Council from the preceding morning. But the council did nothing of real note today. Everything revolved around press conferences involving this puny anonymity and the Ebola hysteria, respectively.

Rhymes with Right has more, from the other side of the aisle.

Council update 10/8

 

A few weeks ago, I noted that Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman were pondering pushing through a ban on types of synthetic marijuana. Today, they introduced the item to the City Council and it passed unanimously. Whereas pertinent State law only disallows the specific chemical makeup typically found in the fake cannabis, the new City law is more all-encompassing. Instead of targeting the compound, it goes after the way it is “marketed and labeled.” That’s good, but I’m concerned it might open up the law to some court challenges.

Synthetic marijuana, unlike it’s honest counterpart, has some serious health risks. Despite the name, there are few similarities in either the high you get or the health risks presented. Unlike the mellowness and avoidance of overdoses hailed as hallmarks of cannabis, the effects of synthetic marijuana are far more similar to that of amphetamines. Lasting brain damage can occur. Forbes Magazine has an article that explains the plethora of individuals who have fatally overdosed on the substance. Perhaps the most compelling reason for the legalization of marijuana is that, since the beginning of time, zero people have fatally OD-ed on it. Obviously, the same is not true with the synthetic substances, prompting a rationale for prohibiting its use even when he are liberalizing drug laws in other ways.

“It is an epidemic, it is the fastest growing drug of choice across the United States and it is many, many, many times more potent than natural marijuana and, in fact, it has no relation to marijuana other than it stimulates some of the same receptors in the body,” Parker told the Chronicle. “It can cause stupor, but it can also cause aggression and agitation, and it’s causing a lot of concern across the community.”

Otherwise, as the Houston Chronicle also notes, most of the buzz surrounding City Hall today involved numerous proposals for amending the City Charter. The four specific changes floated, which could see a ballot — if at all — either next May or next November, are as follows: lifting the revenue cap on property taxes, amending term limit rules, allowing secret meetings of the Council and allowing a gaggle of Councilmembers to propose agenda items.

The revenue cap is an issue that came up over the summer but has predominantly fallen out of the news recently. At issue is a decade-old, voter-approved ceiling on the amount of property taxes raised. Simply put, despite controls of growth and inflation, it simply has not kept up. Because of the cap, rates for homeowners will effectively fall in the coming years –which is indubitably a good thing. But the city will be constrained and will, even in a good economy, be compelled to return to slashing services. It’s a lose-lose proposition, and one that will be bitterly hard to fight. All in all, I think the cap should be lifted, but it’s hard to imagine a majority of the low-turnout municipal electorate agreeing.

Next is the oft-repeated proposal to amend term limit laws. Currently, the Mayor, City Controller and City Council are all limited by three two-year terms. The proposal touted by the Mayor would change this to two four-year terms; I don’t know how it would affect incumbent officeholders, and how many more years they could serve if the proposal is adopted.

Now, most of the arguments in support of term limit reform fall on deaf ears for me. While I’m ambivalent about the whole idea of limiting how many terms a legislator (which a City Councilmember effectively is) can serve, I am a vociferous advocate of frequent elections. The proposal would quite literally make these officeholders accountable to the public half as often, breaking from the tradition set by the lower House of both Congress and the State Legislature. While advocates of it may whine about the stresses put on politicians, I simply do not give a care. Their concerns are subservient to the concerns of their constituents.

Particularly with the increasingly erratic electorate that selects members of the City Council, obstructive Councilmembers are becoming more and more frequent. Former City Councilmembers Helena Brown (R-District A) and Andrew Burks (D-At Large 2) are two sterling examples of this phenomenon. If they were elected under Parker’s proposal, they would still be around doing all that they did at Council meetings. Need I say more?

Third, a proposal has been floated to allow the Houston City Council to meet more in private. Parker and Feldman, I recall, made a similar push a few years ago, but received criticism from the Councilmembers. The two now-former CMs who opposed the strongest, however, Al Hoang (R-District F) and James Rodriguez (D-District I), are no longer on the Council. I have always been bitterly opposed to closed-door sessions such as these, in principle as well as practice. When my father ran for the City Council last year, I even encouraged him to record an advertisement deriding the proposal.

Last, but certainly not least, is a proposal by City Councilmember C.O. Bradford (D-At Large 4) to allow for a coalition of at least six Councilmembers to proposal agenda items. Currently, only the Mayor can make proposals on the agenda. To this, the Mayor appeared absolutely opposed; I can’t say I’m surprised, she has acted almost imperial unilateral with her power recently.

A few months ago, when I spoke to former Congressman Chris Bell, a likely Mayoral contender for 2015, he also expressed support for allowing the Council to influence the agenda. All in all, I tend to think individual Councilmembers should be able to introduce items, but I suppose that just goes against the spirit of the strong-Mayor system.

What do you think about this proposals? How about the synthetic pot ban?

Food trucks now allowed downtown

The Houston Chronicle reports that Mayor Annise Parker has, by executive fiat, lifted the ban on propane-fueled food trucks operating downtown (and in the Texas Medical Center). Citing a recent opinion by the Fire Marshall, who noted that there are not any real dangers for them operating, Parker unilaterally made the decision. In years past, Parker has pushed for a few changes in food truck policy, but the City Council has always been extraordinarily tepid.

Like I explained last month, this decision comes on the heels of a proposed expansive revamp of food truck ordinances. After receiving some pushback from the Council, Parker delayed it. The Chronicle article notes it should be brought back up with a vengeance at some point in October. Observers of Houston politics will note that this has become the signature political move of the Mayor, re-introducing slightly different proposals over and over again until a beaten down Council assents to her will. I suppose this is a benefit of a Strong-Mayor system of government, and I think most politicians would do the same.

The Council-proposal would namely allow food trucks to congregate close together and eliminate a ban on individual tables and chairs. There are also some concerns about the super stringent safety regulations that the trucks must follow. Councilmembers Brenda Stardig (R-District A) and Robert Gallegos (D-District I), respectively, were noted by the Chronicle as somewhat vociferous critics. Gallegos in particular made some really apt comments.

“I’m not opposed to food trucks,” Gallegos told the Chronicle. “But I’m not talking about food trucks outside of bars on Washington Avenue. I’m talking about little hole-in-the-wall cantinas and whether the trucks there are going to be regulated. That’s a problem to me.”

Parker announced the unilateral change Friday afternoon, and I didn’t have time to do any research on this before end of business. I’m planning on calling a few Council offices tomorrow and will update if I receive some meaningful comments.

Just as I argued last month, my thoughts on food trucks are somewhat complicated. For far too long, the most heated critics of food trucks, such as former Councilmember Andrew Burks (D-At Large 2), employed exceedingly bizarre and lousy talking points. Fears about exploding propane tanks or terrorists using the trucks are largely unfounded. Yes, food trucks have blown up before. But so have restaurants. Especially considering that the trucks were already allowed in the high-density uptown and Greenway Plaza districts, I just don’t see any legitimate reason to oppose the trucks entrance into downtown. That being said, it was wholly inappropriate for Parker to go about it like this. I’ll let the attorneys argue about the legality (my guess is that Parker had a right to do this), but doing something by executive order when your legislature is unwilling always smells wrong to me. I don’t like it when the President does it, and I don’t like it when the Mayor does it.

Similarly, I don’t have an issue with the food trucks congregating. Food truck parks are neat creations that serve Austin well, and would be a welcome addition to more areas in Houston. But the ban on individual tables and chairs for the trucks make sense. If you park a truck and set up your tables and chairs, you turn into a pop-up restaurant. Simply put, given the strict regulations that restaurants must obey, it is unacceptable to allow the less-regulated trucks to provide the same service.

Food trucks claim they provide a different service from restaurants, and therefore should be regulated differently. That’s fine, but in order for this reality to work, the trucks actually have to act differently from restaurants. This means moving around and not providing on-site eating options unless it is part of a larger collective.

That being said, most people do not really care too much about equity in restaurant ordinances. Gallegos’ comments provide the most compelling case for preserving the super strict safety requirements the trucks must follow. For many inside-the-loop liberals, their only interaction with mobile eateries is in the form of glitzy mini-buses zooming around Montrose. But the laws also cover less glamorous vehicles, namely in some of the poorer districts. When the Council finally discusses this, I really hope those concerns are addressed well.

As for me, I’m walking to a food truck park in Austin for lunch.

Off the Kuff has more.

Quack Quack!

The Houston Chronicle has the full story on this.

A few days ago, a high-profile fundraiser was hosted by State Representative Sylvester Turner (D-Harris County), to celebrate a quarter-century of honorably serving in the State Legislature. Turner, of course, will be running for Mayor of Houston in 2015, all other things being equal. The Chronicle story insinuated that Turner officially announced his candidacy, though I have heard conflicting reports.

Anyways, this has created quite the buzz at City Hall. Turner, as I have opined in the past, is the undisputed frontrunner in the 2015 Mayoral election. The election will be sure to feature many names, as incumbent Mayor Annise Parker is term-limited. Thus, Parker’s appearance at Turner’s fundraiser raised some questions. Will Parker be supporting Turner? It would obviously be a difficult decision, since some of the other possible candidates include City Councilmember Stephen Costello (R-At Large 1), the Chair of the Budget Committee, and City Councilmember Ed Gonzalez (D-District H), the Mayor Pro Tem, both of which are very close to her.

So when all the reporters at the event couldn’t stop talking about Turner and the “next Mayor of Houston,” whomever that may be, Parker was flustered. Described as annoyed, she confidently stated at “I am still the Mayor of Houston!”

Yes, she is, but not for long. Like it or not, Parker is a lame duck. Quack, quack, quack!

First of all, what else does she have to do? She worked honorably to pass consensus-based overhauls of laws on wage theft and payday lending in the past year. Earlier, she has put her impression on density, transportation and historical preservation, to name a few more. More recently, also ran roughshod over the process to divisively pass a non-discrimination ordinance (which I supported) and an overhaul of vehicle-for-hire regulations (which I didn’t support), respectively. But now, there isn’t much left to do, beside solve some of our big budget problems. Ostensibly, Parker has one more opportunity to convince the Legislature to amend pertinent laws on negotiations with the Firefighter Union, but I am definitely not holding my breath.

Beyond that, Parker’s antics over the long summer didn’t make her any friends. She has probably used up a fair share of her political capital and, with her days in office quickly running out, it is unlikely to be replenished any time soon.

Nobody likes sour grapes, particularly in the form of refusing to recognize one’s own political mortality. Bill White, the Mayor of Houston from 2004 to 2010, was unusually graceful in his exit, but this may have had something to do with the fact that he was in the midst of a race for the Governor’s mansion at the tail end of his term. I know that Parker is interested in running for Comptroller in 2018, but that is a little ways after she must vacate the third floor of City Hall.

Ban on synthetic pot?

The Houston Chronicle reports that Mayor Annise Parker and the City Attorney, Dave Feldman, are aiming to introduce a new ordinance to the City Council’s Quality of Life Committee banning the use of sale of synthetic marijuana. The State of Texas banned many forms of synthetic pot in 2011, but dealers quickly found a way around this law by tweaking –ever so slightly– the chemical balance and names. Accordingly, Houston is stepping in to provide a comprehensive solution to the problem.

According to Parker and Feldman, forms of the creation, be it “K2” or kush, are particularly dangerous. Unlike natural marijuana, which carries no real deleterious health effects, many forms of synthetic pot can cause seizures and palpitations. Accordingly, the city has a real interest in stopping its prevalent use, especially among legal sources. Feldman noted in the Chronicle article that many legal dispensaries still carry the product, something they hope will be ended after a new law is passed.

Councilmembers Ed Gonzalez (D-District H) and Jack Christie (R-At Large 5) were both sought out by the Chronicle to comment on the proposal, and both were broadly supportive. Gonzalez had some qualms but overall remained optimistic, while Christie focused more on the prevention of –what he called– “kids getting zonked out.”

I have to admit, I was rather apprehensive and skeptical when I first heard this headline. As the sagacious will recall, I am a fairly big proponent of the total legalization of marijuana. Accordingly, I originally rolled my eyes when I heard of this proposal, thinking  it was more in the overreaction of the asinine war on drugs. But the dangers of synthetic pot are very real. CNN had a rather terrifying story recently outlining the terrifying side effects that the product often has, sometimes on children.

Obviously, synthetic pot should never be used by minors, and the City should do much to dissuade denizens from using it. However, I don’t know if I am totally sold on whether or not Houston should be spending so many resources combating this comparably minor problem. We still have tons of violent crime, and –like every other major metropolitan police force in the United States– cannot feasibly go after every lawbreaker. Perhaps we should be using our limited resources going after more serious offenses.

Synthetic pot is obviously bad for you, but so is alcohol. I guess this is the civil libertarian in me coming out, but I often think that we should let individuals make their own personal decisions. What do you think? What do you think the City Council will end up doing?

Council expands recycling citywide

The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday that Mayor Annise Parker unveiled a new plan to bring curbside recycling to every Houstonian by year’s end. Specifically, a roll-able 96 gallon green bin will be delivered to all the houses within the city limits, for absolute ease in recycling. Today, the Houston City Council voted unanimously (with the Mayor absent) to spend more than $5 Million to accomplish this ambitious task. The Council held a long –and often rambling– debate on the merits of recycling and the quixotic one-bin-for-all program.

Roughly 30% of houses in Houston are either without any form of recycling or merely have the bulky green bins one must carry by hand. As some may recall, I blasted the Mayor’s short-sighted proposals to “expand” the recycling program last year, which unreasonably focused on upgrading those with the handheld bins to the rolling bins, rather than providing every Houstonian at least some baseline of coverage. Unsurprisingly, the priorities on recycling went to richer and Whiter neighborhoods. District C, arguably the most affluent district, already had virtually full coverage. Some of the comparably poorer districts, including District D and District I, had much more spotty coverage.

One of those portions of District D is most of Midtown, which is still without any semblance of recycling service. When I worked in Midtown, as recently as last year, I would have to give any aluminum cans I had accrued throughout the day a 30 minute ride back to Meyerland if they stood any chance of being recycled.

Indeed, Councilmember Dwight Boykins (D-District D), who represents the area, has been particularly vocal about this matter. “The beauty of this thing is that everybody will be able to participate in the recycle process,” Boykins recently told the Chronicle on the subject.

Obviously, I am elated to hear this much needed adjustment to the city’s sustainability program has occurred.  As much as we hate to admit it, people will rarely go out of their way to do things such as recycle when their exists a much-easier alternative. Blame it on laziness or business or something else entirely, that’s just how it works in society. Accordingly, recycling rates only tend to rise when recycling containers are as ubiquitous as garbage cans. It’s simply naive to think differently.

However, the one-bin-for-all decision is still somewhere in the future, and I look forward to how the City Council deliberates that matter. Councilmembers C.O. Bradford (D-At Large 4), Michael Kubosh (R-At Large 3), Mike Laster (D-District J) and Dave Martin (R-District E) were particularly vociferous in their remarks today. I honestly am still undecided on that issue, with even left-wing environmental groups being skeptical. I can’t wait to hear what some of these councilmembers have to say at the pertinent time.

What do you think?

2015 Mayoral election

Since the beginning of the year, I have been intermittently trying to sit down with the prospective candidates for Mayor in 2015. Mayor Annise Parker, of course, is term-limited at that time, meaning that the election will be an open race. At this time, there is only one candidate openly running for Mayor, complete with signs and social media presence, and that is City Councilmember Oliver Pennington (R-District G). However, there are typically about nine other names that keep coming up as likely Mayoral candidates. These individuals range from being completely ready to go, to simply intently looking into the situation. Additionally, there are about two or three other people I have heard mentioned in passing as possible candidates, but never by anyone willing to go on the record. I will only be discussing the former category.

The eight other candidates, in addition to Pennington, are former Congressman Chris Bell (D-TX), City Councilmember Jack Christie (R-At Large 5), Eric Dick (R), City Councilmember Stephen Costello (R-AL1), METRO Chairman Gilbert Garcia (D), City Councilmember Ed Gonzalez (D-District H), former City Attorney Ben Hall (D), City Councilmember Michael Kubosh (R-At Large 3) and State Representative Sylvester Turner (D-Harris County). Among those I have heard passing on the race are Sheriff Adrian Garcia (D), City Controller Ronald Green (D), Laura Murillo and County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez (R).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL FEATURED ARTICLE!

Fire Union President resigns

The Houston Chronicle reports that Bryan Sky-Eagle, the President of the Houston Firefighter’s Union, has prematurely resigned his position. Sky-Eagle was elected to the post in October 2013 to what was ostensibly a three year term. However, not even one year into the position, he has called it quits, citing the irreconcilable difficulties he had with his membership. To put it bluntly, he was seen as too cozy with Mayor Annise Parker by the rank-and-file members of the union, whom he was quite unpopular therewith.

The Firefighter’s Union has recently been in the news due to a long standing argument between its members and the City of Houston on the topic of pensions. Firefighter’s pensions are considerably more sizable than those for other municipal public servants (Bureaucrats and Police Officers, respectively), and while they have been reduced and modified for others at City Hall in recent years, the same has not happened for the firefighter’s. This is mainly due to an arcane State Law that allows the Legislature to directly oversee the firefighter’s pensions.

Over the summer, there was a tentative agreement reached between Sky-Eagle and Parker on future firefighter contracts, specifically curtailing overtime benefits. Sky-Eagle unilaterally reached this agreement, and when it was supposed to be confirmed by union membership (typically a mere formality), a whopping 93% of members voted it down. Furthermore, there have been other examples of Sky-Eagle going at it alone and without the proper authorization of his membership. The Chronicle article even notes a few examples where he was sternly rebuked by the International Union association.

Specifically, on one occasion, Sky-Eagle made a point of not reimbursing union members for their attendance at a conference. The International Association of Firefighters specifically ordered him to reverse the action. This, among other actions, led to a lawsuit between the local and international entities. The only problem with this is that Sky-Eagle went gunboat on the lawsuit, without seeking the requisite approval from the union membership.

Sky-Eagle, for his part, said that he has been receiving anonymous threats of violence, and decided that it all just wasn’t worth it anymore. I am angered to hear that someone personally went after him, as it cheapens the validity of actual criticisms against him.

As for the underlying issue, I’ve opined broadly on both sides of this issue before, and haven’t necessarily made up my mind about the philosophy of it all. I didn’t actually think the compromise reached between Parker and Sky-Eagle was that bad, but I suppose this was more a comment on how he went about it all.