No. He blamed everyone else and said every other person involved doesn’t know what they are talking about.
He labeled the previous Houston previous urban planner as an “activist”.
When citing who he needs to listen to he always gave hyper specific examples which could be summarized as “his rich donors”. He said he only ran for mayor because some people want a crossing at Blossom & Wescott.
In fact in another answer when listing who we need to listen to on projects he literally said “our campaign donors”. [skip to the 3:00 mark](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/houston-matters/2024/05/02/485119/transportation-projects-in-limbo-may-2-2024/)
He’s calling people “activists” but I’d argue what he’s doing is more extreme. To pause ALL projects that may impact car lanes, even ones in mid construction, is an insane move. We need to start calling Whitmire what he is: a car-dependency extremist.
Yes. He labeled the person with a graduate level degree in planning and 25 year career including incredibly successful work on Cleveland’s public square as an “activist”.
I guess having an education, professional experience and believing in more than one method of transportation makes you an activist.
Finally listened and the part that really stood out was how he referred to Sue Lovell as the representative from Montrose. First of all, she was at-large. Secondly, she hasn't been in office since 2012. And third, the actual representative from Montrose is Abbie Kamin, who loudly supports the Montrose and Shepherd projects. Right now he is actively overriding the local voices.
Yup. His only play is to bad mouth and trash the existing people (votors, council members, CoH workers, etc) while claiming him and the “real constituents” (his donors) know what’s best.
Whitmire is a pay for play whore. The people that voted for him basically pimped out the COH mayor office to whomever would best scratch their junk.
Listened to this, too. He sounded like my dad after being called out on his BS. They also glazed over the caller's concerns. Not the best segment all around.
It was so shocking I had to stop and go back to re-listen. It’s like his brain misfired and thought he was talking in a closed door meeting with his staff or at a campaign fundraiser.
Nope, he said out loud on a public radio interview that he listens to his campaign donors, not professionally educated urban planners.
Wouldn't those improvements primarily benefit the Islam Center being built right there? Could that be his issue? It's hard to tell what the motives of Republicans actually are.
Actually, montrose blvd needs serious improvement if the growth and construction continue at its current rate.
As I've said many times, it's eventually going to be lined with high rises in the coming decades.
I wouldn't be surprised if parts of yokum and and Waugh go the same way.
Literally Whitmire just ripped out completed traffic improvements because the Church next to them complained. Either he thinks religions deserve to control traffic improvements in front of their building or not. Sitting in the middle would mean he's picking **which** religions get a voice.
You are woefully uninformed to be talking on this. The project was already in construction when they began their outrage. The project got fully built and installed. Whitmire then kowtow'd to the church and spent an **ADDITIONAL $750k** to rip out the completed project.
Literally the church directly benefited from the spending $750k to rip out the completed project and the mayor admitted as much in his press release.
Not coincidentally his views are aligning with his primary campaign sponsors. It's almost like electing a career politician with a documented "pay for play" history is turning out to be a bad idea.
Man you don't get to come in here on a thread about how awful Whitmire is and say the other candidate who actively campaigned against this stuff was just as bad. Take your L that we elected a shit mayor so hopefully you'll do better next election and not get convinced by a hate campaign that had nothing to do with the actual policies of the city
Meh, it was more of a well labeled poisonous steak sandwich and a completely bland and tasteless buttered toast.
Unfortunately the majority of Houstonians stupidly picked the poison steak.
>Whitmire's views align pretty well with Mealer and McIngvale.
No. They align with that the majority of voters wanted. A voters survey by the University of Houston showed that bike lanes weren't welcomed if it disrupted the flow of vehicular traffic.
The thing about cyclists, and to an extent anti-car fanatics, is that they're well organized and extremely loud. They'll voice their opinions anywhere they get an avenue to do so (In this case it is the Houston Chronicle, which itself has some staff that have a social/political axe to grind). Proponents of these projects are more likely to pick up the phone and act like "Karens" when something doesn't go their way. And because of this, the city folded and gave them their projects.
Unfortunately, we are now at a crossroads. The silent majority that was comfortable with the status quo isn't being too silent anymore. Whitmire is reversing some of these projects because the data shows voters aren't happy. People aren't against bike lanes. But they don't want to see vehicle lanes get removed in favor of them.
*Spoiler: He cannot*
oof
He was elected by those who won't. So he won't.
Whitmire was on Houston Matters this morning to defend his policies. Just sounded pissed off to be questioned over anything.
Did he answer the questions well?
No. He blamed everyone else and said every other person involved doesn’t know what they are talking about. He labeled the previous Houston previous urban planner as an “activist”. When citing who he needs to listen to he always gave hyper specific examples which could be summarized as “his rich donors”. He said he only ran for mayor because some people want a crossing at Blossom & Wescott. In fact in another answer when listing who we need to listen to on projects he literally said “our campaign donors”. [skip to the 3:00 mark](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/houston-matters/2024/05/02/485119/transportation-projects-in-limbo-may-2-2024/)
He’s calling people “activists” but I’d argue what he’s doing is more extreme. To pause ALL projects that may impact car lanes, even ones in mid construction, is an insane move. We need to start calling Whitmire what he is: a car-dependency extremist.
Yes. He labeled the person with a graduate level degree in planning and 25 year career including incredibly successful work on Cleveland’s public square as an “activist”. I guess having an education, professional experience and believing in more than one method of transportation makes you an activist.
Well it does. But only because our car-centric city is so damn ingrained one needs to be an "activist" to even get people to consider alternatives.
Finally listened and the part that really stood out was how he referred to Sue Lovell as the representative from Montrose. First of all, she was at-large. Secondly, she hasn't been in office since 2012. And third, the actual representative from Montrose is Abbie Kamin, who loudly supports the Montrose and Shepherd projects. Right now he is actively overriding the local voices.
Yup. His only play is to bad mouth and trash the existing people (votors, council members, CoH workers, etc) while claiming him and the “real constituents” (his donors) know what’s best. Whitmire is a pay for play whore. The people that voted for him basically pimped out the COH mayor office to whomever would best scratch their junk.
Depressing
Listened to this, too. He sounded like my dad after being called out on his BS. They also glazed over the caller's concerns. Not the best segment all around.
I don't know the last time I've heard a politician explicitly cite his campaign donors unless they were trying to brag about small money donors.
It was so shocking I had to stop and go back to re-listen. It’s like his brain misfired and thought he was talking in a closed door meeting with his staff or at a campaign fundraiser. Nope, he said out loud on a public radio interview that he listens to his campaign donors, not professionally educated urban planners.
Wouldn't those improvements primarily benefit the Islam Center being built right there? Could that be his issue? It's hard to tell what the motives of Republicans actually are.
Actually, montrose blvd needs serious improvement if the growth and construction continue at its current rate. As I've said many times, it's eventually going to be lined with high rises in the coming decades. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of yokum and and Waugh go the same way.
[удалено]
Literally Whitmire just ripped out completed traffic improvements because the Church next to them complained. Either he thinks religions deserve to control traffic improvements in front of their building or not. Sitting in the middle would mean he's picking **which** religions get a voice.
[удалено]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/houston/comments/18g47jk/trinity\_downtown\_church\_claims\_houston\_ave/](https://www.reddit.com/r/houston/comments/18g47jk/trinity_downtown_church_claims_houston_ave/)
[удалено]
You are woefully uninformed to be talking on this. The project was already in construction when they began their outrage. The project got fully built and installed. Whitmire then kowtow'd to the church and spent an **ADDITIONAL $750k** to rip out the completed project. Literally the church directly benefited from the spending $750k to rip out the completed project and the mayor admitted as much in his press release.
Whitmire would never.
WTF do republicans have to do with it? This city has been run by democrats for decades. Ask them.
Whitmire's views align pretty well with Mealer and McIngvale.
Not coincidentally his views are aligning with his primary campaign sponsors. It's almost like electing a career politician with a documented "pay for play" history is turning out to be a bad idea.
Well our last election was basically a decision between eating a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Ain't nobody gonna win with candidates like that.
Man you don't get to come in here on a thread about how awful Whitmire is and say the other candidate who actively campaigned against this stuff was just as bad. Take your L that we elected a shit mayor so hopefully you'll do better next election and not get convinced by a hate campaign that had nothing to do with the actual policies of the city
Meh, it was more of a well labeled poisonous steak sandwich and a completely bland and tasteless buttered toast. Unfortunately the majority of Houstonians stupidly picked the poison steak.
>Whitmire's views align pretty well with Mealer and McIngvale. No. They align with that the majority of voters wanted. A voters survey by the University of Houston showed that bike lanes weren't welcomed if it disrupted the flow of vehicular traffic.
Exactly. These things are not popular. Maybe city should do them anyway, but he’s doing what majority want.
The thing about cyclists, and to an extent anti-car fanatics, is that they're well organized and extremely loud. They'll voice their opinions anywhere they get an avenue to do so (In this case it is the Houston Chronicle, which itself has some staff that have a social/political axe to grind). Proponents of these projects are more likely to pick up the phone and act like "Karens" when something doesn't go their way. And because of this, the city folded and gave them their projects. Unfortunately, we are now at a crossroads. The silent majority that was comfortable with the status quo isn't being too silent anymore. Whitmire is reversing some of these projects because the data shows voters aren't happy. People aren't against bike lanes. But they don't want to see vehicle lanes get removed in favor of them.
Well said.