barracuda

Ha! I just don't like shopping, period. I have a problem with swarms of children in public when I'm trying to go about my bidness. Target, Walmart, grocery store..... they're everyhwere, the shrieking little knee-biters! Sigh. I wish there was an adults-only shopping center. I'd even drive to the suburbs for it.

Pretty much any store in Midtown seems to be frequented only by adults most of the time (Specs, Randalls).

I think you just uncovered a big reason I don't like Walmart. Shopping there is like walking through a romper room without parental supervision.

Anyone go to that pasta place yesterday?

I've been to the Jenni's Noodle House on Sheperd a number of times. It's good and it's quick; my only qualm is that they overdo the soy sauce on some noodle dishes. I like the ginger chicken and vermicelli salads quite a bit though.

I would believe Target is looking at midtown. But I think that they would probably build their own two story building. They have urban Targets all over the US. Seattle has one, Atlanta, Charlotte, Minneapolis, and a lot in California.

Here is one in an urban development in Seattle:

Here is a video of a two story Target

I'm all for multi-story developments, but I noticed that in both videos, the people were hesitant to use the car escalator. I wonder how often one must wait for hesitant shoppers to finish congregating at the escalator because they can't figure out how to push a cart. I can see it getting annoying to some people who shop out of necessity rather than fun (like me ;-) ).

Shopping at Walmart just feels ultra depressing. Maybe it's the oppressive fluorescent lights, maybe it's the crowd and the type of folks that shop there, or maybe it's just the realization that this company has done considerable harm to local businesses across the nation, both by forcing out smaller mom and pop stores that actually supported the local economy, and also by forcing manufacturers to ship their factories and jobs to China to save 10 cents per package of tube socks. Neither Target nor any mass merchandiser is much better, but Walmart blazed the path before the others and therefore receives the brunt of the criticism.

The only area of Midtown I can see a Target going in is near the Sears or Fiesta. That would allow it to be close to the light rail and also make it visible from 59. I don't think it will ever happen though.

He will never sell it - His goal is nationalization of everything - he is a socialist. Like or not, the masses of people chose a socialist president with a socialist agenda, and he believes he has a mandate to go out and make everything free...make everything equal....but before he can do that he has to control everything.

Haha. Funny, but I really don't believe that Obama's goal is to nationalize everything. He didn't bankrupt Wall Street and Detroit.

And I really don't think this is the picture of a socialist country:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/cono..._looks_like.php

I've never really thought of Scotland as being in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Happy TheNiche Day!

Our license plates seem to have gone through a progression if increasing gayness. What was wrong with inexpensive, plain 80's plates?

Gayness? I don't think any self respecting homo would have designed that license plate. It looks more like something a old rural conservative would have dreamed up.

Don't be like that.

I'm talking about everyday traffic and the fact that bicycles are considered moving vehicles and are supposed to adhere to the rules of the road.

Haha. I haven't known too many bicyclists to stop at every red light or stop sign. My rule of thumb is to stop if there's a bunch of traffic or a cop, but otherwise I slow down to make sure nobody's coming and then go through the intersection.

It would take an eternity to bike through traffic-light heavy areas like downtown if stopping at every light, as the light timing is designed for cars, not bikes. There's a certain thing called momentum that is harder to build up on a bike, and stopping when there's no traffic seems silly.

Put yourself in the position of Rick Perry, gearing up for a knock-out political fight with Sen. Hutchison. If all it took was a piece of heavy-stock paper with words printed on it, a pat on the back, and the comment that a non-entity ought to do something for someone in order to generate free publicity for yourself, you'd do it too.

The embarrassing thing is that so many people on both sides of the political isle are going to read into it, thinking that Perry is actually operating on principle rather than merely engaging in political maneuvers.

Yeah, Perry will sink to the lowest of lows for a chance to win cheap political points with the backwash of Texas.

What is the ecological benefit of a mountain top?

The concern with this method of coal mining is not just about the ecological value of the mountain tops themselves, but about filling in valleys and streams with mining waste, leaving sludge and toxins to flow into water supplies, and degrading the health and well being of communities nearby and downriver.

Yet another reason to be embarrassed to be a Texan. Or should I say, another reason to be embarrassed to have slick Rick Perry as the Governor of Texas.

Rick Perry: "God Bless Rush Limbaugh"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/r...h_n_210969.html

Well, now that Yucca Mountain is off the table (short sighted idiots), it's still going to be a big issue in the not too distant future.

I wonder how many plants would the nation need? I'll probably be feeding worms by the time a new one is brought online, though.

We (USA) has some of the largest coal deposits in the world, while I'm not familiar with "Clean coal" technology, I wouldn't rule it out as a good alternative until we find something better.

Apparently what to do with the waste is the big issue Secretary Chu is working on.

I've heard a lot about "clean coal" technology too, but nobody has proved that it actually works. If it does work, it still doesn't solve the problem of mountain top removal and other ecologically destructive means used to mine coal.

And there you go, assuming that only, or even mostly, crackhouses and brothels were displaced. The third and fourth wards were home to many many hard working, church going folks.

Sorry, but I was referencing my neighborhood. We had an old apartment across the street where some drug dealers lived, so we called it the crack house. There was also whorehouse a few lots down. I was actually sad to see the japanese whorehouse close up a few years ago - it added character to the neighborhood.

Did they find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste yet? Seriously though, I guess it's better than coal.

So is there a trendy term we can create and hurl against a neighborhood's long-time residents who have abdicated their responsibility to maintain both their homes and neighborhood? Because this is what led to 3rd Wards demise. Funny how people blame white people for leaving (white flight) and white people for returning (gentrification) as the source of all the neighborhoods ills. (actually its white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc that are returning) The question that remains unanswered is what happened inbetween?

I don't believe it's always a racial thing, but I agree that there is definitely a perception that "yuppies" or "suburbanites" are ruining or have ruined areas like Midtown and the third ward by moving in and displacing older residents. This, despite the fact that many of the new developments are built on abandoned lots in sparsely populated neighborhoods that are far beyond decay. The real tragedy is that areas like Midtown ever declined in the first place. But I do get annoyed at this perception that, by moving into these areas, you are supposed to be filled with guilt because the crack house and brothel down the street might see higher property taxes as a result.

That said, I do wholeheartedly agree that affordable housing needs to be available when there are displaced residents, and they shouldn't be forced out of their homes. But many of them are renters and have no choice once the owner decides to sell.

In the case of the third ward, we the Midtown taxpayers are funding this preservation. Whether or not the buildings in question deserve taxpayer-funded preservation depends on the eye of the beholder, as I'm sure some of the dilapidated structures being preserved have value to someone besides Garnet Coleman.

But in my opinion, development is inevitable when many of the structures are dilapidated and surrounded by abandoned lots. Instead of funneling the money to keep people in old dilapidated housing, I'd rather see the zoning restrictions to limit the kinds of housing/buildings that can be built, identify and preserve those structures deemed to have historical or cultural significance, and use our tax money to help low-income residents afford to keep a place to live if they are in fact displaced or priced out of the market. I know zoning is a bad thing in Houston and opens up a whole other can of worms and I probably shouldn't have brought it up, but if the free market is left to decide, it will likely build nothing but three-story townhouses crammed as closely together as possible and shut out the existing residents who can't afford them. At least on that note I probably agree with Coleman.

"Disproportionate" is the word of the day. I never made any categorical bright-line statements.

And my preferences are not in question. I frankly don't give a crap who my neighbors are. You do.

Of course, it's never you. And indeed, I stated in posts #99 and 105 that I encourage integrating poor rather than isolating them. That was kind of my point all along.

Somehow you take two words to mean a whole lot of things I never actually said nor intended. If I take the "generally employable" part out I guess you're okay, even though that clearly was not the main emphasis of the post, and was meant as an inclusive term and not an exclusive term (hence the word "generally"). You added the "cripples" and "retards" and flat out stated that they are not employable and poor, without actually showing any statistics.

You stated:

Your assumption poses a problem. It is an undisputed fact that crime occurs with greater frequency in neighborhoods populated by poor people. Also, try going on the sex offender registry and looking at the map to see where people convicted of sex crimes live. It is also an undisputed fact that cripples and retards (people who are not employable) have a disproportionate tendency to live amongst poor people because they are themselves poor.

Correct me if I misinterpreted you, but it sounds to me like you'd be OK with working poor people living as neighbors but that you don't want the criminals, cripples, or retards coming along for the ride. So what is to happen to the criminals, cripples, and retards (and their hapless kids) as the working poor are integrated into better neighborhoods? These are the most at-risk components of society, but you're talking about systematically segregating them into enclaves with people just like themselves, reinforcing the same unsuccessful behaviors within that subculture.

Niche, you read a lot into my comments. Physically disabled folks can often work just as well as anyone else. And mentally retarded folks are not necessarily poor nor unemployable. And if I must state the obvious, no, I don't want to live near criminals. Poor does not equal criminal and criminal does not equal poor.

But what I do believe is that stuffing every poor person into low income housing in one district creates an atmosphere ripe for encouraging criminal behavior. There are plenty of statistics that show that retailers and other businesses do not want to build in low income (i.e. - less profitable) neighborhoods. Thus, those residents have all the more difficulty buying goods and finding employment. When people are put into a hopeless situation, some of them will inevitably turn to crime, drugs, etc. So, that's part of why I don't think dumping all of Houston's poor people in the third ward is such a good idea.

P.S. - Many of my neighbors are poor. Maybe some of the folks are "cripples" or "retards" as you call them; I haven't surveyed them, but I've had very few issues with crime in over seven years...nothing more than a missing potted plant and bicycle pump. Minor thefts like this can happen anywhere, including well-off suburban neighborhoods far away from any low-income housing. So yes, I'm fine having "poor" or "crippled" or "retarded" neighbors in the mix, and I don't just assume automatically they're criminals as you do.

...so you're OK if all the crooks, cripples, and retarded are segregated into one neighborhood?

How enlightened!

Niche, so you assume everyone with a low income is either a criminal or is physically or mentally debilitated? How enlightened indeed.

So basically, we know now that they are required by law to devote 1/3 of the money for low income housing. Also, the Redev Authority has purchased low income land (and housing) in 3rd ward. So here's my question to those on here... Since our TIRZ has to spend 1/3 of our money on low income housing, would you rather them be buying up land in 3rd ward for low income housing, or within Midtown? My vote is for outside of Midtown.

That makes some sense. It is more affordable to buy land in the third ward rather than in midtown, so it makes sense from an economic perspective.

However, from a socioeconomic standpoint, is it really more desirable to locate large numbers of low income people into one single area? If these folks are to have a chance at climbing the economic ladder, they need access to jobs, education, mass transit, etc. This seems almost like zoning on an socioeconomic level. Or should I call it segregation.

I personally don't have a problem with mixing different income groups in one district, assuming they are generally law abiding employable citizens.

Thank you for posting the link to the story on Garnet. This more than confirms what I have been saying. I want diversity in my neighborhood, versus domination by a single group. Garnet appears to be lost in time and locked into a very narrow viewpoint that a neighborhood is either a white, black, Vietnamese, Hispanic, Jewish, or etc neighborhood. He is failing to see that neighborhoods come and go and often make radical changes with the times. If I were to publicly state that I want a particular neighborhood to remain all Asian, all Hispanic, or all white I would be branded as a racist. How is it that an elected public official can say that he wants to keep an area black and remain in office?

His statement: "You can tell a neighborhood's turning,

Yeah, the magnolia and what look like a live oak mean it a southern city. I'm going to guess Charleston as well.

I don't mean for this to be a hijack but I do wonder about the performance of the GPS units that have traffic warnings built in to the program. I assume that the data comes from Transtar but maybe not. Does anyone know how that works?

When I purchased my unit it came with a 6 month free trial, I never got any use out of it while driving in Houston but it was great in a few other cities, Atlanta being one of them. When the free trial was up I declined it

I was wondering the same thing. I have Sirius Traffic in my new car which displays traffic on the navigation screen. I presume they must integrate into the Transtar system and similar systems across the country.

Google maps displays essentially the same thing too, but again I think they just glean the data from existing systems.

I've noticed many of the trees along the freeways were planted and maintained in somewhat of a haphazard manner (crooked, lack of topsoil and mulch, planted too close together, lack of weeding). Some palms can also be trimmed of dead underbrush, which would make them look much better. Many of the palms on the Gulf Fwy looked bad before Ike, but I agree the storm probably worsened the situation for the weaker ones.