The picture of Brown rings even more true in light of the meaningless non-responses he's offered to almost any specific issue he's been asked about since he began running for mayor -- issues that aren't being "inflicted" on Houston from outside of town. Consider, for instance, the way Brown has addressed the two notions recently floated by Bob Lanier, who's busy building his own self-monuments while seeking to extend his policies well past his term-limited tenure.
As previously reported in the Chronicle, Brown appears to be alone among the mayoral candidates in favoring Lanier's proposal to lock in the transfer of Metro funds to the city with a decade-long contract, perhaps without voter approval. Which is fine, except Brown's reasoning doesn't seem to make
much sense. The Chronicle, Brown told me, "didn't get the complete answer to the question." Actually, the Chronicle did get the complete answer, such as it was, and it wasn't Brown who gave it -- it was a spokesman who was quoted in the story. For posterity's sake, here's the complete answer, again, straight -- sort of -- from the candidate's mouth:
"I don't see a problem [with a city-Metro contract] if the mayor is able to change it as times change, if Metro is able to change it or if the taxpayers desire to change it. If you have that clause in there to allow it to change, then there's no problem from my perspective."
So why bother in the first place? And shouldn't we have an election in the first place, since the transfer under Lanier has been well above the level voters okayed in the late eighties?
Lanier also has talked about a similar codifying of funding for his Neighborhoods to Standard and Parks to Standard programs. This is how Brown responded when I asked him about that idea:
"I don't hear any discussion of that at this time."
That was it. Not yes, not no, not maybe -- he doesn't hear any discussion of it, although his patron the mayor has raised the possibility. Brown did go on to add that he, naturally, is all for "the Neighborhoods to Standard concept" because, he related, "it comes from what I did here when I initiated neighborhood-oriented policing."
At this stage of the campaign, Brown seems perfectly content to be Lanier's surrogate -- or his unquestioning puppet, if you will -- and unwilling to demonstrate true leadership by a) taking a clear and unequivocal stand on something, anything, or by b) showing some independence and risking alienating Lanier and his cronies (although before it's over, Brown's handlers -- that is, the same people who ran Lanier's 1991 campaign -- will certainly find something on which he can disagree with the mayor, just for appearance's sake).
Voters may well want more of Lanier, and may be persuaded that Brown is the next best thing. But he's no Lanier. And if for some reason his patron or puppeteer were not around -- Lanier, after all, is 72, and he's been taken to the emergency room from City Hall how many times? -- it's fair to wonder how Brown would operate alone in a job that demands creativity, attentiveness, a strong arm and a thick backside.
Unfortunately for Brown, Crown Heights may offer us a clue.
