The latest edition of an ongoing survey of the attitudes of Houston-area residents painted us as an optimistic bunch, generally appreciative of the benefits immigrants bring to the community and upbeat about our economic prospects.

The survey released last week by the University of Houston's Hobby School of Public Affairs suggested a different picture – slightly more than half of respondents favored banning sanctuary cities, for example, suggesting a tougher stance on illegal immigration.

What changed? Our survey targeted registered voters, while the 2017 Houston Area Survey produced by Rice University's Kinder Institute for Urban Research questioned residents, not all of whom are registered to vote.

That helps to explain why, despite the city's progressive reputation – that's Houston-style progressive, not Hollywood progressive – voters here support some of the most contentious issues taken up by the Texas Legislature this spring.

1) 52 percent oppose sanctuary cities, in which local police and city employees do not automatically turn someone in the country illegally over to federal immigration officers. Support for policies giving cities more discretion was highest among Hispanics, at 55 percent; African-Americans, 50 percent; and Asians, 53 percent. Just 30 percent of Anglo voters support sanctuary cities.

2) 50 percent said transgender people should have access to public restrooms based on birth gender, while 31 percent said it should be based on gender identity.

LONG-AWAITED LAWSUITS: 'Sanctuary cities' law foes still planning legal challenges

It turns out there are significant differences in the opinions of the general population and those of people registered to vote. There are differences between those living within and outside the city limits. And there are even differences among people who vote only in presidential elections and those who also vote in state and local elections.

Consequently, we often get policies that don't seem to match the general population's preferences. Why? Because our elected representatives are more responsive to those who vote than those who do not vote. That's simple logic for any politician who wants to win the next election.

Harris County voters – including those inside the city limits – are older, more likely to be Anglo and decidedly more conservative than non-voters.

So maybe it's not a surprise that a plurality of voters – 47 percent – oppose using the state's Rainy Day Fund to ease this year's budget shortfall. Or that 83 percent of voters within Houston proper say it is important for the legislature to lower their property taxes.

But we also found more moderate views – 52 percent disapprove of the legislature overriding local government decisions, from reining in payday lenders to setting rules for Uber and other ride-hailing services. Almost 63 percent oppose using state revenues to provide vouchers for private and parochial schools, originally a top priority for many Republican leaders.

We are most supportive of things we can see and touch – 80 percent of Houston voters who say they have seen flood control efforts in their own neighborhoods approve of the city's drainage fee. That falls to 60 percent for voters who feel their neighborhoods are less prepared for future flooding.

DISASTER BY DESIGN: To avoid flooding, Houston can't keep developing this way

Even among people who haven't seen the benefits personally, support for flood control remains substantially above 50 percent. Perhaps that's a reflection of the Houston reality – we live in a city that floods. Often. We know something must be done.

Attitudes toward the city's pension debt are equally pragmatic. Houston voters by a 17 point margin support using $1 billion in general obligation bonds to pay down the city's debt to pension funds for police, firefighters and other public employees. That should be good news for Mayor Sylvester Turner, although city voters also support moving public employees to a retirement plan based on investment returns from employee and city contributions, rather than promising a set benefit payment.

That could complicate things, but it is also the human condition – people are more willing to pay for things that affect them and the people they love. If they don't work for the city, it is easier to support capping pension costs. But we would like to think it also is evidence of the city's get-it-done mentality, the recognition that Houstonians are all in this standing water together.

Houston isn't liberal or conservative. It's pragmatic. The Houston Way is real. And the Hobby School survey is more than just a chance for policymakers to benchmark their actions against the attitudes of those who elected them.

It's also a reminder to all of us, voter and nonvoter, to look around and see who we are, with all of our complex opinions.

Renée Cross is associate director of the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston.

Jim Granato is executive director of the Hobby School.

Bob Stein is a research associate at the Hobby School and political science professor at Rice University.

Bookmark Gray Matters. We are all in this standing water together.