The Woodlands May Be Headed For Self-Government

[nmainguy]

But Woodlands is Woodlands. Since a part of Woodlands is in a city's ETJ, I thought everything Woodlands would qualify as a part of a city's ETJ. Also, since Conroe purchased a part of Woodlands, wouldn't that mean MORE of Woodlands would be under Conroe's ETJ?

This is from Houston Strategies: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2006...annexation.html

If you want the in-depth details of all their options (plus some details on the Kingwood and Clear Lake case studies), by all means read the whole 16 pages, but here are a few excerpts that caught my eye:

A little bit more land lie in the ETJs of these two cities (Shenandoah and Conroe), but the vast majority of the Woodlands are in Houston

[DJ V Lawrence]

This is from Houston Strategies: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2006...annexation.html

From that article:

George Mitchell believed in the importance of liberal annexation laws to ensure the future vitality of Texas cities, and he intended to create a community that would one day be part of Houston. He wanted the Woodlands to help Houston rather than to be part of its problems.

If that's true, then wussup with this no-annexation deal with Houston? I wasn't aware of this George Mitchell idea of Woodlands until now. Nmain Dude, how much of this article is pure fact, and how much is interpretation?

[nmainguy]

From that article:

George Mitchell believed in the importance of liberal annexation laws to ensure the future vitality of Texas cities, and he intended to create a community that would one day be part of Houston. He wanted the Woodlands to help Houston rather than to be part of its problems.

If that's true, then wussup with this no-annexation deal with Houston? I wasn't aware of this George Mitchell idea of Woodlands until now. Nmain Dude, how much of this article is pure fact, and how much is interpretation?

As far as Mitchell goes, it's historical fact. It's what he intended and I would challange anyone to say otherwise. Years later things have changed. Now Houston and The Woodlands are taking a different tact. In the short run the deal is advantagous to Houston and The Woodlands. In the long run The Woodlands has to look at the costs of the 200 police officers a previous poster refered to in addition to: The costs of their transportation, weapons, armor, training, infrastructure and the tax base required to support just that. After you've considerd that, move on to fire protection, fire personnel and training, fire trucks and other vehicles and equipment, not to mention liability insurance. Then consider road infrastructure, utilities, public health, solid waste and sewage maintanance: collection and treatment-all the services an incorporated entity requires. I'm not for or against annexation or self rule at this point but all of the above will apply to both entities. Have these issues been addressed? Is The Woodlands prepared financially to bear these expenses without tax increases?

[SpringTX]

From that article:

George Mitchell believed in the importance of liberal annexation laws to ensure the future vitality of Texas cities, and he intended to create a community that would one day be part of Houston. He wanted the Woodlands to help Houston rather than to be part of its problems.

If that's true, then wussup with this no-annexation deal with Houston? I wasn't aware of this George Mitchell idea of Woodlands until now. Nmain Dude, how much of this article is pure fact, and how much is interpretation?

This puzzled me too until I read further on this subject in that 16-page article and on www.thewoodlandsgovernance.org. Apparently George Mitchell's reasoning was that it would be better for Houston to grow out through The Woodlands than for a bunch of small neighboring communities like Conroe and Shenandoah snatch up pieces and break The Woodlands apart. Apparently Mitchell envisioned this back in the 70's when "white flight" and "bedroom communities" and "decaying urban cores" were on everybody's hate list. And Mitchell loved Houston and had big dreams for Houston, as most of us do, whether we live in The Woodlands or in the Heights. So it was natural to dream big for Houston and expect it to grow into a 100-mile-wide metropolis, which it may do someday.

The reality is that cities and their suburbs have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Cities have become a lot more decentralized - in Houston, for example, there are now multiple "downtowns" (employment centers): Greenspoint, Galleria, Downtown, even The Woodlands Town Center is halfway there. A lot more businesses are located in the suburban ring now - whereas the suburbs used to be almost exclusively "bedroom communities" back then. The trend now is people living in one suburb and working in another suburb. That's no skin off the nose of the city - the city is still huge and growing.

Another big difference (that happened by accident) is the full-scale integration of the Houston suburbs in the economic downtown in the 1980's. The Houston suburbs are NOT "lily white" like they used to be. In fact, many places outside the loop are scarier than anywhere inside it. As people have pointed out on this forum, there are more rich whites inside the loop in places like River Oaks than there are out in places like The Woodlands.

Back in the 1970's in places like Detroit, the inner cities were giant ghettoes while the bedroom community suburbs had the high property values. But that's not the case in Houston today. Today, inside the loop, homes are worth double or triple what they are worth in The Woodlands.

And as folks on this forum have described in detail, Houston is struggling to provide services for all the massive amounts of area it already has.

And, unlike Dallas, Houston is in absolutely no threat of being landlocked anywhere. So annexation isn't a requirement for survival today like it may have seemed for a city back then.

I'd be curious to know what George Mitchell thinks today. My guess is that he still favors annexation as a concept...if it were a natural/evolutionary occurrence, like if Houston were right up against The Woodlands already. But the notion of a city extending far beyond its reach...in a desperate attempt to "plunder" a high-income area for its revenue a la Kingwood...without any sort of reasonable plan on how to serve that community effectively...I can't imagine Mitchell seeing that as desirable. Mitchell's vision evolved in many ways as time went on. I'd imagine that this opinion on this has evolved as well.

[Mark F. Barnes]

This puzzled me too until I read further on this subject in that 16-page article and on www.thewoodlandsgovernance.org. Apparently George Mitchell's reasoning was that it would be better for Houston to grow out through The Woodlands than for a bunch of small neighboring communities like Conroe and Shenandoah snatch up pieces and break The Woodlands apart. Apparently Mitchell envisioned this back in the 70's when "white flight" and "bedroom communities" and "decaying urban cores" were on everybody's hate list. And Mitchell loved Houston and had big dreams for Houston, as most of us do, whether we live in The Woodlands or in the Heights. So it was natural to dream big for Houston and expect it to grow into a 100-mile-wide metropolis, which it may do someday.

The reality is that cities and their suburbs have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Cities have become a lot more decentralized - in Houston, for example, there are now multiple "downtowns" (employment centers): Greenspoint, Galleria, Downtown, even The Woodlands Town Center is halfway there. A lot more businesses are located in the suburban ring now - whereas the suburbs used to be almost exclusively "bedroom communities" back then. The trend now is people living in one suburb and working in another suburb. That's no skin off the nose of the city - the city is still huge and growing.

Another big difference (that happened by accident) is the full-scale integration of the Houston suburbs in the economic downtown in the 1980's. The Houston suburbs are NOT "lily white" like they used to be. In fact, many places outside the loop are scarier than anywhere inside it. As people have pointed out on this forum, there are more rich whites inside the loop in places like River Oaks than there are out in places like The Woodlands.

Back in the 1970's in places like Detroit, the inner cities were giant ghettos while the bedroom community suburbs had the high property values. But that's not the case in Houston today. Today, inside the loop, homes are worth double or triple what they are worth in The Woodlands.

And as folks on this forum have described in detail, Houston is struggling to provide services for all the massive amounts of area it already has.

And, unlike Dallas, Houston is in absolutely no threat of being landlocked anywhere. So annexation isn't a requirement for survival today like it may have seemed for a city back then.

I'd be curious to know what George Mitchell thinks today. My guess is that he still favors annexation as a concept...if it were a natural/evolutionary occurrence, like if Houston were right up against The Woodlands already. But the notion of a city extending far beyond its reach...in a desperate attempt to "plunder" a high-income area for its revenue a la Kingwood...without any sort of reasonable plan on how to serve that community effectively...I can't imagine Mitchell seeing that as desirable. Mitchell's vision evolved in many ways as time went on. I'd imagine that this opinion on this has evolved as well.

This is the absolute best and most accurate post on this subject, hands down. It has a very objective flare to it, and covers the issue at hand very very well. Kudos my friend, this one should be framed and hung on the post wall of fame. Thanks for the input.

[bachanon]

ditto, mr. barnes comment; however, mr. mitchell has said recently that he still favors annexation. he has not publicly commented on the most recent agreement that i'm aware of.

[woody_hawkeye]

Mr Mitchell's perspective is no longer relevant. I sincerely appreciate him and honor him on the past but he is not engaged in current affairs. TW is very set on establishing self government. It has been clear for the past year that Houston does not want to get caught up ifinancially and expend the effort to focus on a far suburb. They city has been quite successful in urban renewal and needs to keep its focus there. The city will continue to grow internally with physical modernization and financially improve as it evolves in this renewal. It is imperative that the city consider water and transportation as strategic issues, including an effort to contain the cost of transportation in the city and continously improve upon pollution within its jurisdiction. There have been excellent progress towards forestation along the freeways. A lot more work needs to be put into that general effort. Regional transportation will continue to be an issue and all regional municipalitets take an equal responsibility to make people mobile, yet provide means for cost effecitve local transportation as the cost of vehicle operation continues to rise and ownership becomes more prohibitive in the future. The Woodlands grew over the years and has struggled with ETJ and school fragmentation. With that, the community has accomplished quite a bit in consoldatring school jurisdiction but cannot consolidate it all. CSD will continue to be the primary school system. TW would like to have total consolidation of the ETJ but unfortunately, George did not deal with the entire territorial issue.

[TheNiche]

As people have pointed out on this forum, there are more rich whites inside the loop in places like River Oaks than there are out in places like The Woodlands.

This isn't quite accurate. As of 2006, Claritas, Inc. estimates that there are 13,992 households with a combined annual income exceeding $500,000 in the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land CMSA. The area inside the Loop only accounts for 3,283 of them. Although The Woodlands only accounts for 927 of these households, fully 2.58% of households in The Woodlands are in this income bracket as compared to 1.83% of households inside the Loop, and 0.75% of households throughout the entire CMSA.

While I've got this data in front of me, by the way, I should also point out that only 345 owner-occupied homes, or 1.24%, within The Woodlands are valued at or above $1 million. Inside the Loop, 2.80% of owner-occupied homes are at or above $1 million.

[lockmat]

I thought this article was pretty informative. It's said some things people in here already have, but to me it legitimatizes it.

[nmainguy]

If the Woodlands does incorporate, how will they pay for the essential services I mention in post #93 in addition to the initial payment to the CoH of $16,000,000 set forth in the agreement?

[TheNiche]

If the Woodlands does incorporate, how will they pay for the essential services I mention in post #93 in addition to the initial payment to the CoH of $16,000,000 set forth in the agreement?

More likely than not, with muni bonds.

[MidtownCoog]

The laws enacted after Kingwood anexation really make me wonder.

I'd like to see how those votes came down. The rural Texsa county legislators have worked long and hard against "big bad Houston" in the past.

I think it's sour grapes since they see Houston as getting too much state funding. So this was a nice little revenge for them.

[Mark F. Barnes]

This isn't quite accurate. As of 2006, Claritas, Inc. estimates that there are 13,992 households with a combined annual income exceeding $500,000 in the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land CMSA. The area inside the Loop only accounts for 3,283 of them. Although The Woodlands only accounts for 927 of these households, fully 2.58% of households in The Woodlands are in this income bracket as compared to 1.83% of households inside the Loop, and 0.75% of households throughout the entire CMSA.

While I've got this data in front of me, by the way, I should also point out that only 345 owner-occupied homes, or 1.24%, within The Woodlands are valued at or above $1 million. Inside the Loop, 2.80% of owner-occupied homes are at or above $1 million.

Thanks Niche (beans counting bastid J/K), my off the cuff estimate of 3% of the homes in "The Woodlands" was high. It only reinforces the airs put on in "The Woodlands" by a lot of the suburbanites living there. There are mostly hard working middle class folks that put on there britches just like anyone else, one leg at a time. It's the one's that like to pretend they're too good to shop at Wal-Mart and constantly complain every time they build a new one "next to their multi-million dollar mansions" that take the cake with me. For those trying to "keep up with the Jones' ", I have news for you, the REAL Jones' shop at Wal-Mart, because it's a good deal, and don't care if you see it as a sign of less prestigious standing or a lower step on the Social Registry. H.L. Hunt carries a brown paper sack lunch to the office everyday and drove a beat up Pontiac to work. And if there were a Wal-Mart in his day, you can bet your ass he'd shop there. So lighten up on the airs and just be yourselves. You got some great schools and lots of trees, and really a pleasant place to live in. Quit bitching so much on how bad it is (i.e. crime, municipal services, and on and on and on), and focus on how good it really is. It could be a lot worse.

[MidtownCoog]

It's the one's that like to pretend they're too good to shop at Wal-Mart and constantly complain every time they build a new one "next to their multi-million dollar mansions" that take the cake with me.

Yes, these are the ones that shop at Target instead.

If Target ain't class, I don't know what is.

[LTAWACS]

And while my descriptions of The Woodlands being "special" could easily be argued as being exaggerated, because it is ultimately a suburb, my main point is that it would be expensive and tiring for Houston to engage in this war, and there is a real chance they wouldn't prevail. A better solution, in my opinion, is this $45 million tribute, as you call it.

Maybe this idea would work:

Houston refrains from annexing the woodies. Woodies pays $45million in tribute now (or some other payment) as long as woodies does not incorporate or obtain/acquire/annex anymore land from now on. This way, Houston can annex the surrounding land.

Thoughts?

I don't even know the old law.

Still not educated on the matter yet, help

Don't worry. I'm here.

Check this recent article from the Chronicle. In it, they're noting how The Woodlands is becoming more diverse. And they note how The Woodlands is slightly more diverse than Montgomery County as a whole (90.5% white for The Woodlands, and apparently decreasing, versus 92.9% white for Montgomery County as a whole). Here's the link:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/woo...ws/4354138.html

Is there a :propaganda: smilie?

[Mark F. Barnes]

Yes, these are the ones that shop at Target instead.

If Target ain't class, I don't know what is.

Yeah I know the kind, they pronounce it (Tar-jay')

[LTAWACS]

Of course they owe us. They'd be zip without us. I'm just looking for a copy of this elusive "Homosexual Agenda."

It's in his manpurse.

If The Woodlands had been part of the city of Houston from its beginning back in the 1970's when it started, it would be one of those nice "what might have been" stories where people shake their head and sigh. Like Galveston before the storm.

The Woodlands is someplace that people in Austin and Dallas know about. And envy. It's one of the few hip things about Houston's residential communities.

The Woodlands could change the world. Someday suburbs all around the country could be doing the things The Woodlands has been doing since the 1970's. I could easily see The Woodlands being named to the National Register of Historic Places someday. Or a World Heritage Site with enough time. Communities like The Woodlands don't happen every day.

Mind telling me what exactly it is that they're doing that someday suburbs all around the country will be doing?

[SpringTX]

thanks for the kudos on that post

however, mr. mitchell has said recently that he still favors annexation. he has not publicly commented on the most recent agreement that i'm aware of.

From that latest article cited, now we have our answer about how George Mitchell feels about this agreement:

"The idea also has the backing of George Mitchell, who developed The Woodlands three decades ago with the idea that the community and Houston could work together. He said Friday that he urged White to negotiate to avoid the hostility that arose when the city took over Clear Lake and Kingwood. Mitchell called the deal a 'move in the right direction.'"

there are 13,992 households with a combined annual income exceeding $500,000 in the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land CMSA. The area inside the Loop only accounts for 3,283 of them. Although The Woodlands only accounts for 927 of these households, fully 2.58% of households in The Woodlands are in this income bracket

what if we extend the definition from strictly the inner loop to the beltway, or to the Houston city limits? would that make the proportion of rich folk any higher compared to the "burbs"?

It only reinforces the airs put on in "The Woodlands" by a lot of the suburbanites living there. There are mostly hard working middle class folks that put on there britches just like anyone else, one leg at a time.

The average household income in The Woodlands is $100K, depending on which source you look at and how they measure it. And the average home value in The Woodlands is $200K. Yes, there are some very rich folks there, as TheNiche has pointed out. But it's an economically diverse community by design, and it's generally what most folks would call an upper-middle-class community. It's not River Oaks.

Maybe this idea would work: Houston refrains from annexing the woodies. Woodies pays $45 million in tribute now (or some other payment) as long as woodies does not incorporate or obtain/acquire/annex anymore land from now on. This way, Houston can annex the surrounding land. Thoughts?

I've been hearing people call it The Wood, The Woodies, and The Big The. We who live there refer to it as "The Hoodlands". And only "The Hoodlands".

If Houston incorporates, The Woodlands can't snatch up its neighboring areas if those areas are still in the Houston ETJ, if I'm not mistaken. So Houston should always easily be able to grow around The Woodlands if needed. Although Conroe is right to the north and that would stop Houston there. That most recent cited article pointed out that Houston is a whopping 600 square miles now and may be as large as it will ever get.

what exactly it is that they're doing that someday suburbs all around the country will be doing?

Things like:

* Intentionally leaving 30% to 40% of the land as green space

* interconnected system of 100 miles of bike trails, dozens of parks, lakes/canals, and golf courses woven through residential areas

* Radical requirements for preserving existing trees, both residential and commercial (think of parking lot medians as forest)

* Managed (economic) diversity through mingling residence types, sizes, lots, builders, etc.

* An overwhelming number of cul-de-sacs

* Curved thoroughfares, circular thoroughfares

* Community grouped into villages

* Strict regulations on store fronts, building colors, signs, no billboards, - every street light is painted brown to blend in with the trees, Wal-Mart is brown, and the "golden arches" are about 2' tall on a brown wood sign.

* Etc.

[Gank]

This puzzled me too until I read further on this subject in that 16-page article and on www.thewoodlandsgovernance.org. Apparently George Mitchell's reasoning was that it would be better for Houston to grow out through The Woodlands than for a bunch of small neighboring communities like Conroe and Shenandoah snatch up pieces and break The Woodlands apart. Apparently Mitchell envisioned this back in the 70's when "white flight" and "bedroom communities" and "decaying urban cores" were on everybody's hate list. And Mitchell loved Houston and had big dreams for Houston, as most of us do, whether we live in The Woodlands or in the Heights. So it was natural to dream big for Houston and expect it to grow into a 100-mile-wide metropolis, which it may do someday.

The reality is that cities and their suburbs have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Cities have become a lot more decentralized - in Houston, for example, there are now multiple "downtowns" (employment centers): Greenspoint, Galleria, Downtown, even The Woodlands Town Center is halfway there. A lot more businesses are located in the suburban ring now - whereas the suburbs used to be almost exclusively "bedroom communities" back then. The trend now is people living in one suburb and working in another suburb. That's no skin off the nose of the city - the city is still huge and growing.

Another big difference (that happened by accident) is the full-scale integration of the Houston suburbs in the economic downtown in the 1980's. The Houston suburbs are NOT "lily white" like they used to be. In fact, many places outside the loop are scarier than anywhere inside it. As people have pointed out on this forum, there are more rich whites inside the loop in places like River Oaks than there are out in places like The Woodlands.

Back in the 1970's in places like Detroit, the inner cities were giant ghettoes while the bedroom community suburbs had the high property values. But that's not the case in Houston today. Today, inside the loop, homes are worth double or triple what they are worth in The Woodlands.

And as folks on this forum have described in detail, Houston is struggling to provide services for all the massive amounts of area it already has.

And, unlike Dallas, Houston is in absolutely no threat of being landlocked anywhere. So annexation isn't a requirement for survival today like it may have seemed for a city back then.

I'd be curious to know what George Mitchell thinks today. My guess is that he still favors annexation as a concept...if it were a natural/evolutionary occurrence, like if Houston were right up against The Woodlands already. But the notion of a city extending far beyond its reach...in a desperate attempt to "plunder" a high-income area for its revenue a la Kingwood...without any sort of reasonable plan on how to serve that community effectively...I can't imagine Mitchell seeing that as desirable. Mitchell's vision evolved in many ways as time went on. I'd imagine that this opinion on this has evolved as well.

So you're 92% white, but you're not "lily white". I take it you're another shade of white. I also don't know any strong evidence that being annexed has seriously harmed Clear Lake or Kingwood. I know walking your trash all the way out to the curb is a bit of work, but they've been handling it.

[bachanon]

we walk our trash and our recycling out to the curb.

[SpringTX]

So you're 92% white, but you're not "lily white". I take it you're another shade of white.

My point was that the Houston suburbs as a whole aren't "lily white" any more. There was massive integration in the 1980's after the economic downturn. The fact that The Woodlands itself is very white is more of an anomaly now. So much that people call it "The Whitelands". But check this recent article out:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/woo...ws/4354138.html

I also don't know any strong evidence that being annexed has seriously harmed Clear Lake or Kingwood.

I saw a great post from a Kingwood resident recently on the Chronicle discussion forums about what a mess things have become since they were annexed, but I can't find it now. Among other things, it claimed 14 deaths from slow emergency response. I remember reading about one of these deaths a couple years ago where the emergency response station was less than 2 miles away from a soccer field in Kingwood where a man had a heart attack...and it took the responders 45 minutes to find the place. The post also claimed that the city wasn't maintaining the forest-like quality and that the aesthetics of the community were suffering.

My impression of Kingwood from visits and talking to residents in the last several years is that not a lot new is happening in that community, in terms of development or community events and so on. I read a research article recently where Kingwood was descrived as having lost its "soul" once it had been annexed. Compare that to the news I just read on the Chronicle website 5 minutes ago about how a big-name national triathlon event is going to make its annual home in The Woodlands starting next year.

[rantanamo]

Explain to me how people want to be away from the city, in the safe suburbs, yet they want city events, venues and corporations? I always thought people moved there to get away.

[bachanon]

this is a part of what is successful about the woodlands, people can get away from certain undesirable aspects of living in the city, yet have many of the same amenities (symphony, art, restaurants, shopping, outdoor activities). the woodlands appeals to many active, outdoor/nature loving people of all ages. as much as i would love to come in to houston for theatre events and holiday activites, there is more than i can fit in my calendar right here in the woodlands (not always on the same scale, but it does the trick most of the time). and, having assets including 100 parks and 150 miles of hike/bike pathways, jazz concerts, concerts in the park, movies in the park, dive-in movies at area pools, free houston symphony concerts, festivals and so on, all underneath a six story or higher pine forest; add the shopping, restaurants, concerts at the pavilion, mega church facilities with amazing productions and activites..............add all this up and it doesn't really suck.

[SpringTX]

Explain to me how people want to be away from the city, in the safe suburbs, yet they want city events, venues and corporations? I always thought people moved there to get away.

In terms of "corporations", there are 40,000 jobs in The Woodlands town center, 90,000 jobs in Greenspoint, and lots of jobs scattered in between (Spring, etc.). Yes, many in The Woodlands work downtown or in the Galleria area. But yet other folks here work at major employers like HP/Compaq, Continental Airlines, or Houston Northwest Medical Center which are all located elsewhere in suburbia. The old model of "live in the bedroom community and work downtown" was true for most suburbanites in 1970. It's not true for most Woodlands residents today.

As for "events", KincaidAlum recently made a list on HAIF that included events like marathons. Here's an article in the Chronicle from 2 days ago:

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/conroe/news/4396809.html

Another item on his list was 4th of July celebrations. The Woodlands has a very big one. The Woodlands and other suburbs have a ton of events, as Bachanon said. A lot of them are outdoors/fitness in nature. The annual Dragon Boat festival in The Woodlands comes to mind.

As for "venues", you're familiar with the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavillion. As every Woodlands resident knows, almost every weekend our roads are clogged with umpteen thousands of people coming into The Woodlands from everywhere else in the Houston metro area to see the concerts. We don't need to go downtown to see the ballet or the symphony when they're making the trip up here on a regular basis to the Pavillion.

As for major league sports, Houston has a done a great job of keeping all their pro sports stadiums downtown. But this seems like the exception rather than the rule for cities around the country. In DC, for example, 2 out of their 4 pro sports stadiums are located way out in the suburbs. And it's always possible that some of Houston's stadia may head out to the suburbs at some point in the future. Our minor league hockey team the Houston Aeros is based way out in the burbs. And the pro golf tournaments take place in the suburbs, of course.

And, as Bachanon says, high school sports are big here in The Woodlands. While it may not be a true substitute, I personally think that's a great way to bring together a community with young families.

As for museums, those are generally downtown. But not always. Moody Gardens is one example. The national funeral museum is another example (ok, you can laugh at that one). And don't tell me the urbanites aren't making weekend pilgrimages out to places like Old Town Spring, the Kemah Boardwalk, The Woodlands waterway, and so on.

One thing to remember is that what might seem more appealing to single adults or couples without kids isn't necessarily what is in demand in The Woodlands. People settle here because it's a great place to raise a family, with great schools and so on. Walk into the ballet downtown on any given night. I see a lot of white hair in the crowd. Even if the Houston Ballet's home were right in The Woodlands, I don't know how often you'd see me truck my youngsters there. For one, the tickets are kinda steep, last time I checked. For another thing, that kinda stuff ain't always so popular with the young and restless crowd.

[Trae]

The Woodlands sounds like a larger Cinco Ranch. The Woodlands should have made its own school district earlier.

[SpringTX]

The Woodlands sounds like a larger Cinco Ranch.

In people/lifestyles, very much so. In appearance, they couldn't be more different.

The Woodlands should have made its own school district earlier.

I don't know if they'll ever be able to pull this off. I can't imagine any ISD in the area voluntarily letting go of some of its turf.

[lockmat]

The Woodlands sounds like a larger Cinco Ranch. The Woodlands should have made its own school district earlier.

They're part of CISD.

Just asking, b/c I don't know, but why would they have to create their own district? They only have 2 1/2 HS's right now. I don't even know, but it seems like they'll only have to add one more if they keep McCullough how it is.

[Gank]

I understand the appeal of living in The Woodlands, but it seems to me that you're trying to set up paradise in the woods while ignoring the world around you. In a way you're also bypassing Brown vs The Board of Education. Trying to increase Hispanic families is a step in the right direction.

[bachanon]

I understand the appeal of living in The Woodlands, but it seems to me that you're trying to set up paradise in the woods while ignoring the world around you. In a way you're also bypassing Brown vs The Board of Education. Trying to increase Hispanic families is a step in the right direction.

ummm, yeah. try reading "the woodlands: the inside story of creating a better hometown" by roger galatas with jim barlow, published by the urban land institute.

i'm lmao of at "....................bypassing brown vs the board of education".

there is a reason the woodlands is considered a utopian experiment. george mitchell was influenced by utopian idealists in the 60's. one of his greatest concerns was that minorities have not embraced the woodlands. this is a cultural issue, not an evil, anti-diversity machination by the woodlands' founders or its residents, as gank implies.

[SpringTX]

The whole race issue is a hornet's nest to discuss, so I'm leery to even go there. But if we do get into it, it might deserve a thread of its own.

I'm not sure why The Woodlands is so white, especially since it is so very economically integrated: more so than most communities of its type in the country. I have a theory, though, and it's something that no sociologist will touch with a 10' pole. I'll go out on a limb with this one, even though it'll probably get a fiery storm of backlash upon me...

I wonder if African Americans don't have the same consumer preference for this sylvan kind of wonderland like other ethnic groups (those of European descent) do. There's no redlining any more. And there's no price point reducing the African Americans market - any African American could live in The Woodlands tomorrow if they wanted, because there's a ton of homes and rental units in all price ranges.

What made me think of this was trying to buy Lord of the Rings action figures for my nephews a couple Christmases ago. All the Wal-Mart in the white neighborhoods had a whole aisle of Lord of the Rings merchandise. But all the stores in the African American neighborhoods had none. It was the strangest thing I had ever seen. Obviously Lord of the Rings doesn't sell there. Maybe that's because all of that swords and fantasy genre is straight out of old English/Celtic and other European mythology.

So maybe the wooded "enchanted forest", Robin Hood, druid romanticism of The Woodlands is a cultural preference that inadvertently affects the racial composition. If so, I think it's too bad, because they don't know what they're missing. Although apparently Mexican nationals are the next big market for homes in The Woodlands - maybe that's a cultural preference, too.

If you're an African American on this forum, speak up and let us know if this sort of "cultural preference" notion seems to make any sense.

Ok, let the fiery storm of backlash upon me commence...