Slick Vik

That is what I have been saying for years if you want to see downtown population exploded start targeting the 40,000 To 50,000 a year crowd..the RN (instead of just doctors) ..the police, fire ,paramedics, etc... Stop trying to be New York with The 2,000 one bedroom.

It's not just that but some people just don't want to spend a lot on rent regardless of salary.

Unless you're global services on united their customer service is pathetic

Lower income residential is exactly what downtown and the nearby areas need. Something catering to the $2500 to 3000 a month crowd.

For one person 3000 a month is a $55,000 salary roughly that's not bad

I met some from New York one time that were at hilton Americas and they were bored out of their mind

Hopefully luna gets a new location I like it

Hey easy now, don't put me in the same category as those two, it hurts my feelings.

I just respond to unreasonable trolling but I shouldn't

I think it is a relevant question to this building because it begs the question, should we allow countries to be represented here that support or harbor terrorists. I'm not a Middle East expert so that's why I asked if Saudi Arabia does.

But to list a few countries and government authorities that support(ed) the killing of innocent people or help terrorists monetarily:

Hitler

Sadaam Hussein

Syria

Afghanistan

Pakistan

Gaza

North Korea

Again, this question is related to this building. The above is supporting argumentation for my question. It is not an underhanded way to attack a religion. The little research I've done since asking suggests Saudi at least publicly denounces terrorism, or at least that's the way western media presents it. That's like two mins of research.

Should other countries have the us embassy which inserted dictators in iran, panama, nicaragua, and covertly supported other ones in Argentina, chile, brazil, Libya, and Iraq? See how ludicrous this sounds? The Iraq "war" was an oil grab where thousands of Americans and Iraqis died. No country has a clean history.

Is la guadalupana closed I have noticed it's been closed the last few evenings

It's worth trying if the flight is $19. 1k isn't that great global services is much better hopefully I'll have it again next year

There was a $20 sale to sf

I'm pretty sure that all of DART's initial lines started in downtown.

Going where?

It's just two different strategies dart is building from the outside in and houston is building from the inside out.

This is awesome takes out another parking lot and now the parking lot district doesn't look nearly as bad. The other sky house will take out another lot also!

Sky house plus second sky house plus alliance means the parking district doesn't look as bad as it did

This actually works out in metro's favor in a way because it gives CAF a chance to deliver the rail cars on time

DART is not building this line. The Fort Worth Transit Authority is to be completed by 2018. By 2018 we will have no new lines and DFW will have a great transportation system.

Yea this half is Fort Worth to DFW the next half is DFW to Richardson via Plano

Never going to happen in this town ever again. But you can always check out the Section 8s on Fondren. Or the offerings around Lake Worth in Fort Worth.

There are still $1 a square foot apartments all over houston.

This is the Ryanair of Mexico. Sometimes flights cancel if enough seats aren't sold but is a great alternative to united.

So we've come up with two more cities not on the east coast that have grocery stores Seattle and LA. There are two others I can think of off the top of my head Portland and Miami. Denver, San Diego, Salt Lake City are also possibilities.

People run and walk here at night this was considered unsafe even two years ago. This project looks like it may be in the same league as the San antonio riverwalk expansion which I didn't think was the case at first.

Fair enough. How does Culberson's restriction on not funding rail for the Richmond portion scuttle the whole line? If that was the case, why can't METRO break it into separate projects to bypass that restriction?

Serious question.

I believe the study was for one line and that's what metro would apply for federal funding for. The Feds made it clear already that there are many projects applying for funding and they are not going to play these kind of games like splitting a line when there are other cities waiting without such problems.

I actually don't live in Houston, but resorting to the "Inner Loop Master Race" mindset is a fallacy as well. Did you guys not take any sort of debating class in college?

You sound like culberson's lawyer I hope he pays you at least. But it's true you have little to no interaction with the area being spoken of so your opinion on the subject is mostly meaningless.

Well, see, that's the thing--the "Culberson overruling the voters" schtick actually isn't true, because it glosses over a few details:

- The 2003 referendum didn't actually decide the routes, just that X miles of mass transit would be created in Y corridors, and Z would be allocated for it. At the time, it wasn't even clear that all of that would be light rail (METRO decided that in 2007).

- It wasn't until 2008 that the City Council voted (13-2) to allow the light rail on certain city streets.

- Even if you were to change your argument that Culberson overruled the vote of the city, he only prohibited federal funding on the Richmond corridor, which is only less than 3 miles. Can METRO honestly not fund just 3 miles of light rail locally? Probably not, since METRO is the king of wasting money, irrelevant of Culberson's decisions and views.

I have a sinking feeling that this is what wastes money...commuter rail has been discussed for years (decades), and since UP owns the lines, it's unlikely that they would agree to that.

North Main (and Main Street, too, IIRC) was six lanes wide before light rail was added. Now, for most of the route, save for a few spots, it's just two drivable lanes. Richmond only has five.

You don't understand how federal funding works it's not piecemeal. And the line was built for maximum ridership taking it off Richmond counters that.

Strawman arguments used against the rail or Afton Oaks (and by extension, rail opponents)?

Slick (maybe others, like the one with a cat as an avatar) used that argument for months of why Afton Oaks residents/Culberson supporters/Culberson were horrible/wrong people of why rail should have blasted west toward 610 instead of jogging south and over (or under) 59.

I'm personally glad that rail doesn't go west on Richmond, not because I'm a huge Culberson supporter, but mostly to retain the road's partial use as a major thoroughfare, accessibility, and those trees, of course.

However, there are really good valid reasons for opposing the route, and good valid reasons for supporting through there. By picking the most dubious, least-stated reason of why the rail shouldn't go through Afton Oaks and attacking that idea, your actual reasons for opposition of their opposition seem weak. How would you defend the other, better arguments, like disturbing (and likely killing) the oak trees, or limiting where you could turn, or by forcing all the traffic onto the outermost lane, you'd be putting all traffic onto the lane that runs closest to houses?

On the other hand, if your arguments can be distilled into "If you're against light rail running through your neighborhood, you're a racist", then trying to argue anything else is pointless.

I think what annoys people the most is that one neighborhood is stopping a major project the rest of the city voted for.

Because Criminal commit crimes then wait for the rail???..

Yea makes no sense to me. Just racism. But the same people already take the bus so it's an invalid argument.

I'm sure some people said that. But it wasn't the top argument in preventing rail down Richmond, was it?

It was one of them.

I'm also pretty sure that Afton Oaks was also part of the Uptown coalition that prevented any widening of 610 over the years (different thing, yeah I know) but NIMBYs are NIMBYs, with both valid (oak tree deaths) and invalid (stray currents) arguments.

Difference is 610 widening probably meant destruction of some homes but rail didn't