East End/EaDo Real Estate

[kylejack]

Note that that strategy only works if they are actually taking something of yours with them.

Or something of a neighbor's who you have never met.

[AtticaFlinch]

This is why I changed my load to buckshot. Dead men cannot be called as a witness. But I agree, making your home unattractive to burglars is Step One.

That's why the first thing I did when I moved into my current home was put a rusty engine block and a couple Kroger's shopping carts on the lawn.

[kylejack]

and a couple Kroger's shopping carts

You monster.

[TheNiche]

That's why the first thing I did when I moved into my current home was put a rusty engine block and a couple Kroger's shopping carts on the lawn.

It isn't enough to have an engine block in your yard if it isn't hanging from a branch of a tree by a chain or salvaged fraying dock lines. Only that level of mechanical ingenuity is sufficient to convey your redneck bona fides. At that point, a prospective burglar not only satisfied with your lack of nice things but that you will be passionate with your decision to shoot, steady with your aim, and proud of the consequences that may come.

[rbarz]

It isn't enough to have an engine block in your yard if it isn't hanging from a branch of a tree by a chain or salvaged fraying dock lines. Only that level of mechanical ingenuity is sufficient to convey your redneck bona fides. At that point, a prospective burglar not only satisfied with your lack of nice things but that you will be passionate with your decision to shoot, steady with your aim, and proud of the consequences that may come.

You guys have it all wrong. You need to put a weight set on the front lawn... prison style.

[samagon]

I'm assembling my list, let me know if I miss something:

1. flamethrower

2. shotgun with bayonette

3. old engine possibly hanging from tree (I'll have to wait a few years as my red oak was planted only a year and a half ago).

4. weight set

5. lawyer on retainer

6. industrial cleaning supplies

7. Samuel L. Jackson's number so he can be on brain detail

For the engine block, what is recommended? I'm sure any foreign manufacturer is out of the picture, and generally any 4 cylinder engine should be a no go, but what are the advantages and disadvantages to 6 vs 8 cylinder, and then if I go 6, inline or V? I think if I could get an old ford or dodge straight 6 that this would be the best.

I'm not certain about the weight set, if someone doesn't recognize the danger that is posed by a weight set in the front yard, couldn't they use one of the weights to wreck havoc?

And should I go out and get some old appliances as well (washers, dryers, cars) and put those in the front yard too?

[sarahiki]

I'm assembling my list, let me know if I miss something:

1. flamethrower

2. shotgun with bayonette

3. old engine possibly hanging from tree (I'll have to wait a few years as my red oak was planted only a year and a half ago).

4. weight set

5. lawyer on retainer

6. industrial cleaning supplies

7. Samuel L. Jackson's number so he can be on brain detail

For the engine block, what is recommended? I'm sure any foreign manufacturer is out of the picture, and generally any 4 cylinder engine should be a no go, but what are the advantages and disadvantages to 6 vs 8 cylinder, and then if I go 6, inline or V? I think if I could get an old ford or dodge straight 6 that this would be the best.

I'm not certain about the weight set, if someone doesn't recognize the danger that is posed by a weight set in the front yard, couldn't they use one of the weights to wreck havoc?

And should I go out and get some old appliances as well (washers, dryers, cars) and put those in the front yard too?

Might be simpler to get a deadbolt and good insurance...

[kylejack]

Might be simpler to get a deadbolt and good insurance...

Hm, neither of those would have stopped the incursion in the OP.

[sevfiv]

What amount of burglaries/forcible entries end up with inhabitants being attacked or injured?

I mean while the thought of blasting someone's body parts all over the place because they're trying to take my television is thoroughly exciting (), I couldn't handle the mess. But hell, even that could happen if they slash themselves on a broken window. I could see if you felt *you* were going to be splattered all over your living room shooting/stabbing/bludgeoning may be an option, but otherwise is it really worth it?

[kylejack]

I think its important to leave some lights on especially when you're home to discourage invasions. If someone still breaks in, they likely mean you physical harm.

[Highway6]

I'm assembling my list, let me know if I miss something:

1. flamethrower

1. Personal flamethower

You want Yoga Fire... not Yoga Flame.

Don't go all crazy on us and burn your place down.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Highway6

[TheNiche]

What amount of burglaries/forcible entries end up with inhabitants being attacked or injured?

I mean while the thought of blasting someone's body parts all over the place because they're trying to take my television is thoroughly exciting (), I couldn't handle the mess. But hell, even that could happen if they slash themselves on a broken window. I could see if you felt *you* were going to be splattered all over your living room shooting/stabbing/bludgeoning may be an option, but otherwise is it really worth it?

Then load less-than-lethal ammunition. You might try this beanbag round because not only will it indicate to law enforcement that you were trying to be respectful of the concept of sanctity of life, but because it imprints a dye marker on the suspect so that if they're arrested, the police have strong evidence tying them to the crime scene.

That's the great thing about a shotgun is its situational versatility.

[sevfiv]

^Ooh...not a bad idea!

[ricco67]

Then load less-than-lethal ammunition. You might try this beanbag round because not only will it indicate to law enforcement that you were trying to be respectful of the concept of sanctity of life, but because it imprints a dye marker on the suspect so that if they're arrested, the police have strong evidence tying them to the crime scene.

That's the great thing about a shotgun is its situational versatility.

That's quite true, but why not simply load it with birdshot since it does the same thing?

It leaves a deep enough of an imprint on the suspect that it leaves a trail of blood for law enforcement to prove they were in their house.

Not to mention if he's not caught and survives, he will remember not to hit THAT house again.

Otherwise, a beanbag will just leave a bruise and remember that might be the worse he will face....if he comes back.

[kylejack]

Because birdshot wrecks your house whereas beanbag only wrecks what it hits.

[ricco67]

I agree, and can appreciate that, but it isn't that much of a deterrent he if decides to pull something out something with a bit more kick.

Adrenalin does interesting things to a human body and he may not even feel it.

[kylejack]

Have you ever seen someone shot with a bean bag? Its pretty heavy stuff.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=rYs6tU9xdg8

[samagon]

In all seriousness, I am certainly not prepared to take the life of someone unless I am absolutely certain my life, or the life of a loved one is in danger. My belongings aren't worth having to look someones family (no matter how much they may have deserved it) in the eye after taking a life.

When guns are in the equation, you step it up a notch, and you absolutely have to be 100% sure you can and will use it if you pull it.

I would have to train my fiance (and likely go to the range for some refreshers myself) in the appropriate use, and then trust that she will be able to think under the high pressures of that kind of situation, and that she will be able to use it if necessary.

The beanbag shotgun sounds like a good idea, but then I have to either have multiple shotguns, or carry it around the house with me at all times to feel safe.

Eventually, when we have children, that will bring a whole new element to the arsenal stashed around the house.

A beanbag doesn't do a heck of a lot of good if the guy entering your house has a gun too, and is able to overcome the beanbag to the face and nuts due to the adrenalin rush.

For me personally, I see any gun as a last option and would rather consider other options that deter them from entering the house in the first place, such as leaving bear traps scattered through my backyard, or electrifying my window frames. Or the more pedestrian approach of an alarm system, or fence, maybe even a video surveillance that records when motion is detected.

Edited January 12, 2010 by samagon

[TheNiche]

I agree, and can appreciate that, but it isn't that much of a deterrent he if decides to pull something out something with a bit more kick.

Adrenalin does interesting things to a human body and he may not even feel it.

If it were me, and I were using less-than-lethal ammo, I'd still probably have #1 buckshot loads as the last couple of rounds in the magazine. And an affixed bayonet. Just in case.

[ricco67]

In all seriousness, I am certainly not prepared to take the life of someone unless I am absolutely certain my life, or the life of a loved one is in danger. My belongings aren't worth having to look someones family (no matter how much they may have deserved it) in the eye after taking a life.

When guns are in the equation, you step it up a notch, and you absolutely have to be 100% sure you can and will use it if you pull it.

I would have to train my fiance (and likely go to the range for some refreshers myself) in the appropriate use, and then trust that she will be able to think under the high pressures of that kind of situation, and that she will be able to use it if necessary.

The beanbag shotgun sounds like a good idea, but then I have to either have multiple shotguns, or carry it around the house with me at all times to feel safe.

Eventually, when we have children, that will bring a whole new element to the arsenal stashed around the house.

A beanbag doesn't do a heck of a lot of good if the guy entering your house has a gun too, and is able to overcome the beanbag to the face and nuts due to the adrenalin rush.

For me personally, I see any gun as a last option and would rather consider other options that deter them from entering the house in the first place, such as leaving bear traps scattered through my backyard, or electrifying my window frames. Or the more pedestrian approach of an alarm system, or fence, maybe even a video surveillance that records when motion is detected.

This is one example I could find of a guy not going down. Granted, he's going to be bruised, but it convinced him that he didn't want to face another.

Otherwise I agree with you, but if all you're going to do is piss him off, you need to have a better backup plan.

I've shot at people who tried to steal a car in the past (I think I winged him), and I won't hesitate to do so again. I work hard for what I have and I don't have it in me to give them a chance to do it again without some sort of consequence.

Never could understand the mentality of people that like to steal other people's stuff for a living.

[TheNiche]

In all seriousness, I am certainly not prepared to take the life of someone unless I am absolutely certain my life, or the life of a loved one is in danger. My belongings aren't worth having to look someones family (no matter how much they may have deserved it) in the eye after taking a life.

When guns are in the equation, you step it up a notch, and you absolutely have to be 100% sure you can and will use it if you pull it.

I would have to train my fiance (and likely go to the range for some refreshers myself) in the appropriate use, and then trust that she will be able to think under the high pressures of that kind of situation, and that she will be able to use it if necessary.

The beanbag shotgun sounds like a good idea, but then I have to either have multiple shotguns, or carry it around the house with me at all times to feel safe.

Eventually, when we have children, that will bring a whole new element to the arsenal stashed around the house.

A beanbag doesn't do a heck of a lot of good if the guy entering your house has a gun too, and is able to overcome the beanbag to the face and nuts due to the adrenalin rush.

For me personally, I see any gun as a last option and would rather consider other options that deter them from entering the house in the first place, such as leaving bear traps scattered through my backyard, or electrifying my window frames. Or the more pedestrian approach of an alarm system, or fence, maybe even a video surveillance that records when motion is detected.

In the event that a burglar is armed, I'd definitely want to be armed. Beats the alternative.

The other thing is that you can largely control the level of contact with an intruder in a situation such as you experienced. Just because you've got a firearm doesn't mean that you have to go all Joe Horn on them. You could keep the firearm under your bed, and simply retreat to that position and barricade yourself in the bedroom until police arrive on the scene. Let the burglar take the TV...but you need to assure the physical safety of yourself (and soon, your loved ones).

In all seriousness, a fence, a dog, and motion-sensing lights are probably adequate deterrents. That's your Plan A. But Plan B is important, too.

[sarahiki]

I'm in favor of all of you having firearms; if these guys get the idea that homeowners are likely to be armed, maybe they'll be less likely to break into my house, too. Just please, please, please be smart ... you might not have kids, but if you ever have a kid inside your house for any reason, lock the guns away.

[sevfiv]

This guy actually killed the intruder (but didn't mean to...oops!):

A 39-year-old man shot and killed a teenager he suspected was stealing a TV from his northeast Houston home this weekend, police said.

The homeowner woke up around 6:30 a.m. Saturday when the security alarm sounded in his two-story townhouse in the 2900 block of Baer, just outside downtown Houston.

When he looked out his second-floor bedroom patio door, he saw the suspect, identified by police as 19-year-old Marcel Jaquan Simpson, carrying away his television set.

The homeowner fired shots from his bedroom balcony. Simpson dropped the TV and jumped the fence, collapsing on the other side, authorities said.

The homeowner called 911 and Simpson was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The homeowner, who spoke on the basis on anonymity, was left shaken and frightened.

“I didn't want him to die,” he said. “I didn't want him to get away, but I didn't want to kill him either.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6808245.html

[drone]

I'm of the general presumption that I'm not psychic, and therefore I cannot determine at the moment of entry whether or not a burglar is there to a) just steal, and will run if confronted, b ) just steal, and will fight back if confronted, c) there with primary goal to cause harm to my family, or d) intoxicated and unpredictable. Additionally, not being psychic, I am unable to determine if they are armed until there is compelling evidence of either case.

Given that, and given the numerous other variables, and general awareness that the police, even if called, will likely not arrive for a number of minutes, I keep what you might call "protection" available at home. Added that I am unaware of their armed status, I refuse to load such "protection" with non-lethal or minimal-penetration (i.e. frangible) ammunition. My presumption is that in the case I am compelled to protect myself, I must be prepared to trade a life for a life. I understand that everyone has a different viewpoint on the subject, but when it comes to self-defense, you're defending yourself -- not diffusing a riot, or playing "war games". That means my opinion is that if you've got a weapon to defend yourself, and if you've pointed it at someone, then you should be prepared to kill them. Not being prepared, hemming and hawing over non-lethal ammunition will show its self in a time of crisis, and likely give your attacker the upper-hand.

So, pistols are loaded (including chambered round) with hollow points, shotguns with lethal ammo. I practice and tell myself "keep shooting until it doesn't move," and throw my faith behind the Castle Doctrine. Thankfully, I've never had to put these concepts to the test, but I do pray that if I ever do, that I worry that I responded with too much force, rather than too little.

!c

Edited January 19, 2010 by drone

[TheNiche]

I'm of the general presumption that I'm not psychic, and therefore I cannot determine at the moment of entry whether or not a burglar is there to a) just steal, and will run if confronted, b ) just steal, and will fight back if confronted, c) there with primary goal to cause harm to my family, or d) intoxicated and unpredictable. Additionally, not being psychic, I am unable to determine if they are armed until there is compelling evidence of either case.

Given that, and given the numerous other variables, and general awareness that the police, even if called, will likely not arrive for a number of minutes, I keep what you might call "protection" available at home. Added that I am unaware of their armed status, I refuse to load such "protection" with non-lethal or minimal-penetration (i.e. frangible) ammunition. My presumption is that in the case I am compelled to protect myself, I must be prepared to trade a life for a life. I understand that everyone has a different viewpoint on the subject, but when it comes to self-defense, you're defending yourself -- not diffusing a riot, or playing "war games". That means my opinion is that if you've got a weapon to defend yourself, and if you've pointed it at someone, then you should be prepared to kill them. Not being prepared, hemming and hawing over non-lethal ammunition will show its self in a time of crisis, and likely give your attacker the upper-hand.

So, pistols are loaded (including chambered round) with hollow points, shotguns with lethal ammo. I practice and tell myself "keep shooting until it doesn't move," and throw my faith behind the Castle Doctrine. Thankfully, I've never had to put these concepts to the test, but I do pray that if I ever do, that I worry that I responded with too much force, rather than too little.

!c

Firstly, I'd like to start by saying that I agree with you in principle. My defensive strategy is much the same. If there is an unauthorized intruder in my home, I'm going to shoot at them with the intent of killing them, not merely incapacitating them. It'd be a different matter if they're on my lawn, and then I may challenge them to try to force them into a submissive posture until the police could show up but I wouldn't dare to shoot at them unless provoked.

Having said that, I understand that there are many people that couldn't stomach the thought of this situation, and that less-than-lethal ammunition is something that allows them a clear conscience that no matter what happens, they weren't trying to kill someone. And I don't hold that against anybody; I have my morals and they have theirs. I don't have to agree with somebody on that kind of thing in order to respect them. And if less-than-lethal ammunition is something that helps them pull the trigger so that they can actively defend themselves instead of capitulating to an intruder out of moral ambiguity, then I'd say that the less-than-lethal ammunition has served its purpose. I still say it's a good idea to have a couple of #1 buckshot rounds at the bottom of the magazine, just in case, but that's their prerogative. It's their life, its their decision to make, and that they're still contemplative of morality as it pertains to the sanctity of life doesn't make them stupid.

[kylejack]

I don't know if its purely moral, either. I think that people who have shot and killed someone have bad feelings about that for the rest of their lives, even if they were entirely in the right. Even Joe Horn says it didn't feel anything like he thought it would.

[drone]

Firstly, I'd like to start by saying that I agree with you in principle. My defensive strategy is much the same. If there is an unauthorized intruder in my home, I'm going to shoot at them with the intent of killing them, not merely incapacitating them. It'd be a different matter if they're on my lawn, and then I may challenge them to try to force them into a submissive posture until the police could show up but I wouldn't dare to shoot at them unless provoked.

Having said that, I understand that there are many people that couldn't stomach the thought of this situation, and that less-than-lethal ammunition is something that allows them a clear conscience that no matter what happens, they weren't trying to kill someone. And I don't hold that against anybody; I have my morals and they have theirs. I don't have to agree with somebody on that kind of thing in order to respect them. And if less-than-lethal ammunition is something that helps them pull the trigger so that they can actively defend themselves instead of capitulating to an intruder out of moral ambiguity, then I'd say that the less-than-lethal ammunition has served its purpose. I still say it's a good idea to have a couple of #1 buckshot rounds at the bottom of the magazine, just in case, but that's their prerogative. It's their life, its their decision to make, and that they're still contemplative of morality as it pertains to the sanctity of life doesn't make them stupid.

Agreed - and I don't believe it makes them stupid. I guess it's all a matter of training and upbringing, I was raised to believe that any use of a firearm (outside of certain crowd control uses by trained personnel) should be considered a deadly measure, it reflects in my position on them (such as making sure that even a dis-assembled barrel is not pointed towards anyone during cleaning).

No one else's opinion should be considered wrong, I was just trying to make the point that it would seem to me that "non-lethal" and "firearm" don't really go together in most situations. But, yes, one must not discount the courage and willingness to defend that a firearm may impart on an individual, even if it has less-than-lethal ammo loaded. The most important part is that when you're in the situation, don't hesitate and don't appear scared.

I'm with you on the "outside of my home" part. I would approach the situation differently if they're outside of my home, not just because of the intrusion and safety factor, but also because the situation could be rendered differently under the law -- the threat could be less imminent.

Mind you, a simple pump-action shotgun can resolve most such issues without a shell being fired, but lord help you if you need to fire it, and it isn't ready to!

For the OP, I sympathize with your situation, and am glad it ended with no one hurt, and nothing lost.

!c

[TheNiche]

I guess it's all a matter of training and upbringing, I was raised to believe that any use of a firearm (outside of certain crowd control uses by trained personnel) should be considered a deadly measure, it reflects in my position on them (such as making sure that even a dis-assembled barrel is not pointed towards anyone during cleaning).

Ha, well that's cool. I was brought up the same way, almost to the point that I might describe it as neurotic. Sadly though, many people are not anywhere near as respectful of the potential for happenstance or operator error...and sometimes pay the price.

[crunchtastic]

I'm of the general presumption that I'm not psychic, and therefore I cannot determine at the moment of entry whether or not a burglar is there to a) just steal, and will run if confronted, b ) just steal, and will fight back if confronted, c) there with primary goal to cause harm to my family, or d) intoxicated and unpredictable. Additionally, not being psychic, I am unable to determine if they are armed until there is compelling evidence of either case.

Given that, and given the numerous other variables, and general awareness that the police, even if called, will likely not arrive for a number of minutes, I keep what you might call "protection" available at home. Added that I am unaware of their armed status, I refuse to load such "protection" with non-lethal or minimal-penetration (i.e. frangible) ammunition. My presumption is that in the case I am compelled to protect myself, I must be prepared to trade a life for a life. I understand that everyone has a different viewpoint on the subject, but when it comes to self-defense, you're defending yourself -- not diffusing a riot, or playing "war games". That means my opinion is that if you've got a weapon to defend yourself, and if you've pointed it at someone, then you should be prepared to kill them. Not being prepared, hemming and hawing over non-lethal ammunition will show its self in a time of crisis, and likely give your attacker the upper-hand.

So, pistols are loaded (including chambered round) with hollow points, shotguns with lethal ammo. I practice and tell myself "keep shooting until it doesn't move," and throw my faith behind the Castle Doctrine. Thankfully, I've never had to put these concepts to the test, but I do pray that if I ever do, that I worry that I responded with too much force, rather than too little.

!c

Mike, honey, is that you?

Kidding, Drone. But you sound remarkably like my SO, right down to the way our weapons in the house are loaded.

[porTENT]

Is Broadmoor a sketchy neighborhood? Or would you describe your situation as anecdotal or a rare occurrence considering your story details?

[drone]

Mike, honey, is that you?

Kidding, Drone. But you sound remarkably like my SO, right down to the way our weapons in the house are loaded.

*laugh* I sure I hope I've not got a second personality, and if I did - I'd hope it wasn't living down the street! *grin* (That could get real confusing, real fast!)

All this reminds me that it's been a bit since I've been to the range, and I still haven't taken the lady to get her familiar with the most recent selection in "ready defense." (Shame on me!) Alas, looks like her and I have a date this weekend, hehe.

!c

[CHiPs]

Is Broadmoor a sketchy neighborhood? Or would you describe your situation as anecdotal or a rare occurrence considering your story details?

Going on 4 months living in Broadmoor and I feel safe. It's a neighborhood in transition, so it is what it is. The park nearby has really cleaned up. It looks much better than it did years ago, thanks in part to the COH, and now with more lighting I think it helps to keep it that way. On occasion I drive around and see homes slowly being renovated. Not sure how often break-ins happen, but at least the response time is excellent. I check the HPD crime tracker and don't see a need for me to get an alarm. I'm getting a dog soon, but only to keep the neighborhood cats away...(I'm not a cat person).

[samagon]

Is Broadmoor a sketchy neighborhood? Or would you describe your situation as anecdotal or a rare occurrence considering your story details?

I've got a little more than a year worth of time in the neighborhood, I did and still do feel safe here.

The neighbors on my left and across the street have been living here for a long time and were surprised with the news.

I'm still pretty sure I'm going to be getting a security system for the house though.

[musicman]

I've got a little more than a year worth of time in the neighborhood, I did and still do feel safe here.

The neighbors on my left and across the street have been living here for a long time and were surprised with the news.

I'm still pretty sure I'm going to be getting a security system for the house though.

so you feel safe but need a security system. hmmmmmm.

[samagon]

so you feel safe but need a security system. hmmmmmm.

I also lock my door.

For me the decision is easy, right now, I am the only one living in the house, but at some point my fiance is going to be moving in, the last thing I would want is for a 5' tall woman to be in the house when someone decides to break in. If a security system helps to reduce that chance, I'm all in.

It wouldn't matter if I lived where I do now, or if I lived in a gated community with a guard on duty at the gate.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

For me the decision is easy, right now, I am the only one living in the house, but at some point my fiance is going to be moving in, the last thing I would want is for a 5' tall woman to be in the house when someone decides to break in. If a security system helps to reduce that chance, I'm all in.

A security system won't do anything to reduce the chance of break-in...it'll just make a bunch of noise AFTER a break-in.

A bogus security system sign will do more good at PREVENTING a break-in than having a real alarm system, in my opinion.

A barking dog, on the other hand, does a much better job of scaring off would-be intruders.

[kylejack]

I dunno, a good crook should be able to spot most window breakage sensors and avoid those houses, right?

[TheNiche]

I dunno, a good crook should be able to spot most window breakage sensors and avoid those houses, right?

oxymoron alert

[kylejack]

*Posts a picture of Richard Milhous Nixon*

[jwinko]

I recently bought 2 lots in the acres home area, total 30,000 sq ft. I have plans to build 1 2500 sq ft home there. Because it is on a lot larger than 15k sq feet I must put in a water retention pond. Now if I were to build 3 houses, one on each lot, each house being 5000 plus feet and a driveway of concrete for a total of 7,000 sq feet I would be free and clear and not have to build a retention pond, Does anyone have any experience with this ruling and how to quickly resolve this issue. I don't hav ethe extra money to build a pond, I don't want a pond, I don't want to pay to replat the land. But, I have to do something as I really want to build there.

thanks

john

[LTAWACS]

Sounds like a pain... perhaps a real estate attorney is in order.

[RedScare]

Is the house going to span both lots? Seems to me, you should keep the lots separate and only build on one 15,000 square foot lot. I haven't looked at the drainage calculation form in detail though, so I'm not positive this would work.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I recently bought 2 lots in the acres home area, total 30,000 sq ft. I have plans to build 1 2500 sq ft home there. Because it is on a lot larger than 15k sq feet I must put in a water retention pond. Now if I were to build 3 houses, one on each lot, each house being 5000 plus feet and a driveway of concrete for a total of 7,000 sq feet I would be free and clear and not have to build a retention pond, Does anyone have any experience with this ruling and how to quickly resolve this issue. I don't hav ethe extra money to build a pond, I don't want a pond, I don't want to pay to replat the land. But, I have to do something as I really want to build there.

thanks

john

Are you building across the lot lines, or on one lot only? If it's just one lot, then just conveniently ignore the other lot. Am I correct in thinking that you can't build across lot lines without re-platting, or is that just my imagination?

Here's another possible approach: the City does not require detention if you do not increase the overall impervious cover of the site. Was there any existing impervious cover on the lots in the past? If you can document this (photographs, survey, HCAD, old aerial photos), the City should let you off.

Only other way to get out would be to pay a licensed Engineer to do a study...and I can tell you, it would be cheaper to dig a small hole on your lot.

If detention is required, consider this: if you're putting about 2500 sf of impervious cover on the lots, you need about 500 cu.ft. of volume on-site. That's a hole 22.5' by 22.5' square, one foot deep...or reduce it to 16' by 16' if you dig it 2 feet deep. That's small enough to dig with a shovel and a wheelbarrow. Make a rain garden.

If you want to reduce the detention required, you can also look at various "low impact" techniques like permeable pavement/pavers or even a green roof.

[jwinko]

Are you building across the lot lines, or on one lot only? If it's just one lot, then just conveniently ignore the other lot. Am I correct in thinking that you can't build across lot lines without re-platting, or is that just my imagination?

Here's another possible approach: the City does not require detention if you do not increase the overall impervious cover of the site. Was there any existing impervious cover on the lots in the past? If you can document this (photographs, survey, HCAD, old aerial photos), the City should let you off.

Only other way to get out would be to pay a licensed Engineer to do a study...and I can tell you, it would be cheaper to dig a small hole on your lot.

If detention is required, consider this: if you're putting about 2500 sf of impervious cover on the lots, you need about 500 cu.ft. of volume on-site. That's a hole 22.5' by 22.5' square, one foot deep...or reduce it to 16' by 16' if you dig it 2 feet deep. That's small enough to dig with a shovel and a wheelbarrow. Make a rain garden.

If you want to reduce the detention required, you can also look at various "low impact" techniques like permeable pavement/pavers or even a green roof.

[kylejack]

Ugh, even Austin is calling it Eado now.

http://www.statesman.com/life/travel/emergine-eado-houston-s-newest-arts-community-235511.html

[little frau]

Told somebody in Spring that I live in downtown yesterday, she asked me which part, Montrose or Heights or what?

I really had a good laugh at that one!! I continue to be amazed at the folks who live north of the belt who have NEVER been to downtown.

I've lived in this area for years and just heard (read?) the term EaDo on HAIF. I hated it then and wondered where it orginated. Now I know.

Where would be the best place to lodge a protest? I still like East End. It has an edge about it, and I'm comfortable with it. No fluff.

[TheNiche]

Ugh, even Austin is calling it Eado now.

http://www.statesman.com/life/travel/emergine-eado-houston-s-newest-arts-community-235511.html

Wow, this reporter really phoned it in. She went to only one event, probably looked at a couple of brochures, and drove around very little. She mentioned Lucky's and Huynh (who catered the event) but none of the other edgy offerings that have cropped up, like Calliope's, Sparkle Burger, the meat pie vendor, District 7, or the taj mahal of Vietnamese food, Kim Son.

And it was a good event, mind you. I was there, so it had to be good by default. ...or maybe it was just free and that made it good, and not me so much. Still, not worthy of a travel article in Austin.

[LTAWACS]

Told somebody in Spring that I live in downtown yesterday, she asked me which part, Montrose or Heights or what?

I would disassociate myself from her. Fast.

UGh.

[totheskies]

Wow, this reporter really phoned it in. She went to only one event, probably looked at a couple of brochures, and drove around very little. She mentioned Lucky's and Huynh (who catered the event) but none of the other edgy offerings that have cropped up, like Calliope's, Sparkle Burger, the meat pie vendor, District 7, or the taj mahal of Vietnamese food, Kim Son.

And it was a good event, mind you. I was there, so it had to be good by default. ...or maybe it was just free and that made it good, and not me so much. Still, not worthy of a travel article in Austin.

What????? Ou est le Meat pie vendor??? I've been looking for some good meat pies ever since before the Super Bowl!! In fact, i was supposed to bring meat pies to a Saintes des Gras SB party, and could not find them.

[kylejack]

What????? Ou est le Meat pie vendor??? I've been looking for some good meat pies ever since before the Super Bowl!! In fact, i was supposed to bring meat pies to a Saintes des Gras SB party, and could not find them.

http://blogs.houston...ies_in_eado.php

Also, inside Kim Hung Market there is

http://blogs.houston...ts_rice_box.php

and

http://www.houstonpr...andwich-605067/

Edit: Also, over on Pease a stone's throw from Meridian is http://www.yelp.com/biz/thiem-hung-sandwich-houston which has some amazing beef stew.

Edited February 16, 2010 by kylejack