Taking Up Space: Houston police hijack scarce public parking for personal cars

I’m not sure who remembers or who read my original post regarding vehicles with police parking placards and expired inspections/registrations. But it seems that just recently, a local TV news crew has uncovered there’s more to it than I first found out.

KHOU-TV recently reported on police officers assigned to work in the 1200 Travis building, parking on the street with their police placards to avoid having to pay the parking meter. The problem is, many of these spaces are normally two-hour limit spaces.

The meter maids are either complicit with this state of affairs, or simply lack the spine to actually write parking tickets and cite fellow city employees for flagrantly violating the law.

From the story:

[N]either did a uniformed officer whose personal car sat for a full eight-hour day [have anything to say].

I-Team: “Must be nice, park all day, don’t have to pay? Is it fair that you get to park for free and other folks don’t, officer?”

Lois Holmes was quick to answer that question.

“No it’s not fair! If I have to pay they should have to pay,” Holmes said. “I don’t pay, I get a ticket.”

Which, of course, is the same reason I posted my story about expired tags and inspections–an average citizen is noticed with expired items, he/she gets a ticket. It’s the same deal with parking, which is actually a bigger problem because of the limited amount of on-street parking that exists to begin with.

But this is the part that really burns me up:

Turns out, HPD does provide parking spaces for its employees, and even offers a shuttle service to and from remote lots. Those shuttles cost taxpayers more than $400,000 a year to run.

Two-fifths of a million dollars to run the shuttles. And at least some of the employees feel they are above using them. And in fact, feel they have a “get away with it” card when blowing off the law that means they don’t have to use them.

(To get an idea just how much money this is, the city of Houston has taken in some $1.6 million per day on average so far in 2012 if I read the State Comptroller’s report correctly. So, $400,000 is about a quarter of an entire day’s sales taxes. I assumed the totals as of the time I downloaded the report were through the close of business on April 19, which could be wrong.)

Outrageous. If anyone at HPD is wondering why the department has an image problem, look no further.

What is the NBA thinking? Sponsored jerseys under consideration

The New York Times recently reported on the NBA’s consideration of jersey sponsorship. The report cites examples of the WNBA and MLS as prior successes.

From the article:

Adam Silver, the N.B.A.’s deputy commissioner, said in an e-mail:
“If we add sponsor logos to jerseys, we recognize that some of our fans will think we’ve lost our minds. But the N.B.A. is a global business and logos on jerseys are well established in other sports and commonplace outside the U.S. Our goal isn’t to be the first major league to do it, but in the same way that virtually all arenas and stadiums now have naming rights deals, we recognize it’s only a matter of time.” […]

In 2009, the [WNBA’s] Phoenix Mercury signed a three-year deal worth at least $1 million annually with LifeLock, the identity theft protection company, to replace the name on its jersey with the company’s name. […]

Four teams followed the Mercury-LifeLock deal with similar ones: the Liberty, with Foxwoods Resort; the Los Angeles Sparks (Farmers Insurance); the Seattle Storm (Bing); and the Washington Mystics (Inova Health System). Then, last season, Boost Mobile acquired the rights to add its logo beneath the players’ numbers on the jerseys of 10 of the 12 W.N.B.A. teams.

For reference, here are pictures of the 2009-2010 home jerseys and 2009-2010 away jerseys of the Phoenix Mercury, courtesy of sportslogos.net. The first problem I notice is one can’t tell what city these jerseys are from unless you know which team Lifelock sponsored that year. There is no mention of Phoenix anywhere on the jersey. Not even in smaller type.

Contrast this with the Houston Dynamo’s 2007-2008 home jerseys and 2007-2008 road jerseys (also from sportslogos.net). The Dynamo have since added a sponsor in similar fashion to the Mercury starting with the 2008-2009 season; though there is a smaller Dynamo logo elsewhere on the jersey, similar confusion now results for new fans to the game who wonder who this “Amigo Energy” or “Greenstar” team is (previous and current Dynamo uniform sponsors, respectively).

While I do have a favorite NASCAR driver (Kurt Busch), I hardly ever watch the races on television. But I do know there are sponsor logos everywhere–the cars, the driver uniform, the pit crew. NASCAR is a bit different, though, as the cost of keeping a team going without sponsors is prohibitive, though it could be done if the race lengths were shortened by a factor of 10. I will happily concede the Daytona 50 just doesn’t have the same ring to it, nor would it attract as many fans.

With sponsors also comes the possibility of silly conflicts. Not only are NASCAR’s vehicles and teams sponsored, but NASCAR’s various series are sponsored as well. Best known to most fans is the Sprint Cup Series, sponsored by the mobile phone provider of the same name. Flash back to 2007 when AT&T merged with BellSouth, and Cingular would cease to exist as a mobile phone brand. At the time, Cingular was the sponsor of the #31 car (Richard Childress Racing). AT&T thought they would be able to just take the Cingular logos off the car, put on the new AT&T logo, and be done with it. Sprint had other ideas, and for a short time the #31 car raced without a sponsor logo. Eventually a deal was worked out where AT&T could sponsor the car in 2008 but only after agreeing to leave the sport afterwards–a pretty lousy deal for AT&T given that they paid for sponsorship through 2010.

I point out NASCAR here to show what it looks like at the bottom of the slippery slope. I don’t want NBA uniforms to look like that, and I can only imagine the can of worms opened up when, say, Apple sponsors the LA Clippers uniforms and then gets hacked off when Microsoft or Google wants to sponsor the All-Star Game. Really now, if I want to watch soap operas I can add Young and the Restless to my DVR’s recording list.

It may seem strange, but I actually miss simple yet profound NBA arena names like The Summit, The Forum, The Spectrum, Boston Garden, etc. I remember vividly reading the reaction of a kid to the renaming of The Summit to Compaq Center, which went something like “are they playing basketball or selling computers?” Adult fans have complained about the overmerchandising of Toyota’s motor vehicles at the Rockets’ new home, Toyota Center, something that to my knowledge Compaq was not guilty of during that company/brand’s time as naming rights holder of the Rockets’ former home.

The practical problems are enough by themselves. But, even as a marketing/PR consultant, I honestly feel that sponsor logos on uniforms just flat out look tacky. It’s almost like the NBA is saying “we give up, we’re broke”. I also have serious doubts the would-be sponsors would want their company name associated with gang activity. In theory, of course, the gangs can already use WNBA or MLS uniforms as their attire but I don’t think this is likely as the NBA is much better known.

In conclusion, if the NBA really wants me gone as a fan, this is a great move. I am not against sponsorships and advertising in principle but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I also hope the NBA thinks ahead, and realizes the only thing tackier than sponsored uniforms today, is NBA footage of today’s games shown 5, 10, 20 years from now with the name of some now-bankrupt or since-taken-over company splashed across the players’ jerseys. Or worse, if it’s decided a given product can’t be advertised on TV and they sponsored NBA jerseys for a given year, to just air those games may mean some guy is working overtime on the blur machine. Indeed, it would be quite hilarious if the NBA did this, then abandons the experiment after four or five seasons and then we heard sportscasters talk about “the sponsored jersey era” after realizing just what a bad move it was.

The 50 dirty things you can’t say in a standardized test in NYC

A recent CBS New York news story just has to be seen to be believed, and I quote:

Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, [New York City Department of Education] officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests.

The reasons behind some of these give me considerable pause to question whether or not the Department is a drug-free workplace. The complete list, quoting the story (and note some of these aren’t really words as such, but closer to things):

  • Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological)
  • Alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs
  • Birthday celebrations (and birthdays)
  • Bodily functions
  • Cancer (and other diseases)
  • Catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes)
  • Celebrities
  • Children dealing with serious issues
  • Cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia)
  • Computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting)
  • Crime
  • Death and disease
  • Divorce
  • Evolution
  • Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes
  • Gambling involving money
  • Halloween
  • Homelessness
  • Homes with swimming pools
  • Hunting
  • Junk food
  • In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge
  • Loss of employment
  • Nuclear weapons
  • Occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling)
  • Parapsychology
  • Politics
  • Pornography
  • Poverty
  • Rap Music
  • Religion
  • Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan)
  • Rock-and-Roll music
  • Running away
  • Sex
  • Slavery
  • Terrorism
  • Television and video games (excessive use)
  • Traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters)
  • Vermin (rats and roaches)
  • Violence
  • War and bloodshed
  • Weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
  • Witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Some are admittedly somewhat understandable (bodily functions, pornography, sex, alcohol/tobacco/drugs, cigarettes) but then we go off the deep end. Seriously, no mentions of homes with swimming pools? Rock music? Weapons? Witchcraft? Religion and religious festivals? Halloween?! Birthday celebrations?! Rats and roaches?!

I see a certain parallel with the Kurt Vonnegut short stories Harrison Bergeron and The Sirens of Titan. The more we attempt to shield our kids from the reality that yes, some people will have their own swimming pools and nicer cars, and the real world has things like gambling, alcohol, rats, roaches, and homelessness, the bigger shock they will get when they finally figure out that it does.

The last thing we need to do is set our kids up to fail the biggest test of all, the final examination that is their adult life. And I believe by taking all these things out of standardized tests is a huge step in that direction. As the saying goes, why be politically correct when you can be right?

Of course there are traces of pot on that money

As recently reported by RawStory, a waitress in Moorehead, Minnesota, is suing the local police department after they seized $12,000 from her under the guise that it was “drug money.”

From the article:

Stacy Knutson was working at the Moorhead Fryn’ Pan restaurant when she discovered a wad of cash wrapped in rubber bands in a to-go box.

“No, I am good; you keep it,” Knutson claimed the customer told her when she tried to return the money.

At first, police told her she could have the money back if no one claimed it 60 days. After 90 days, they still refused to return the money, telling her it was being held as “drug money.” > [… because a] drug-sniffing dog determined [the money] had a strong odor of marijuana.

Now, think about this for a second: this article on snopes.com confirms as true the urban legend that 80% of our money is contaminated with some small amount of cocaine. That, by itself, should cast into suspicion any attempt to seize money based on it being “drug money.”

As stated elsewhere in the story, Stacy said she “feels like [she] did the right thing by calling the Moorhead Police” despite the fact she “desperately needed the money.” I have to question whatever wisdom there was behind trusting the local police department with $12,000, which should come as no surprise to my regular readers. This is yet another way that drug prohibition has ruined our sense of justice and our society: it is un-American (specifically, a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution) to just take someone’s property.

What I think happened here is that the Moorhead PD realized they were strapped for cash just like Stacy, and that combined with a case of “heavy badge-itis” led someone to say “let’s just say a drug dog sniffed this and smelled pot on it, so we can keep it.” It’s entirely possible the money was even intentionally contaminated with marijuana prior to letting the drug dog sniff it.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Stacy’s lawsuit prevails after something very similar to this is revealed in court. If so, I hope some heads roll in Moorhead, as those in government (particularly law enforcement) can’t be allowed to get away with this in any decent society.

The Amanda treatment: another drug prohibition horror story

I was in shock when I first read this.

CopBlock reports on the nonsensical arrest of Amanda, who I would assume for privacy reasons has been identified only by her first name. From the article:

Amanda, a mother of 2 who has already been forced to live with her ex due to the housing bubble and the recession is scheduled to be arraigned on April 10th for felony possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture.

That’s legal speak for they believe she was trying to make meth. Never mind that she has never manufactured meth nor ever intended to. […] [A] box of Sudafed she had allegedly purchased was found at a meth lab the cops raided last month. She was never seen at the meth lab. […]

This gross miscarriage of justice is attributed to a single box of Sudafed found in the meth lab, which authorities traced back as having been purchased by Amanda. […] Ultimately, Amanda’s real crime was that of being a good neighbor. She thought nothing of it when a friend asked for some cold medicine during cold and flu season (and why would she?). She gave him some Sudafed, a decongestant, which can also be used in the manufacture of the drug known as methamphetamine or crystal meth.

For those that aren’t aware, in 2006 a Federal law came into effect requiring stores to log and limit sales of products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. This is how the box Amanda gave to her neighbor was traced back to her. Several states enacted similar less stringent laws prior to the Federal law. These laws are, of course, an attempt to hinder the manufacture of methamphetamines, yet another battle in this so-called “war on drugs.”

Do the cops really expect the average person who just wants to help their neighbor say “sorry, I can’t do that, you might be trying to make meth” or something similar? I think the majority of well-meaning people will happily hook up their neighbor with a bottle of cold medicine, especially during the middle of flu season. And any one of them could easily get what I’m going to call “the Amanda treatment.” And that’s wrong, and that shows just how flawed drug prohibition is.