barracuda

Just curious...do people favoring this project do so out of spite for the NIMBYs, or do you genuinely think it's ideal to errect high-rises in the middle of low-density neighborhoods consisting primarily of two-story homes and businesses? On one hand, maybe this is our best hope for residential densification in this city, since it's clearly not happening in the CBD. On the other hand, maybe such buildings will in fact degrade the surrounding neighborhood and diminish the desirability, as these are car-dependent developments that aren't going to make neighborhoods more walkable and livable for existing residents, at least with the revised plans. I have similar mixed feelings about 1111 Studewood.

Yes, although I doubt that would be acceptable for most homesteads. People generally overlook the immense biodiversity of parries and grasslands. And invasive Chinese Tallows take over most of what people don't outright demolish.

I wouldn't put much credence in Zillow's estimates. Their numbers go up and down in extreme fashion for no apparent reason. They lack the details to determine an accurate value, which is why they call it a Zestimate and not an appraisal. I suppose they may be okay for researching general trends, at least when they are able to obtain recent sale prices for homes in an area.

I've been collecting the AC drip in a bucket and using it to water plants, but it fills up in just an hour or two. I'd like to make a rain/drip barrel and have enough to water all the plant beds without drawing from the tap. I never would have bothered with this if rain was in the long-term forecast. But I suspect water restrictions may get even tighter if we continue averaging just over an inch of rain per month for 2011, most of which fell back in January.

The other Sundance Cinema locations have bars with limited menu items (small pizzas, sandwiches, appetizers).

I'm glad you guys don't own AAPL stock .

I took it to mean you can water on designated days before 10am and/or after 8 pm. After midnight would not be the same day.

Grover Norquist would be proud. After all, it's his tax pledge that's holding the Republican party hostage, and he did say his goal is to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” Because government bad, freedom (or more realistically, plutocracy) good.

From Warren Buffett... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3 http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/buffett-blasts-low-taxes-billionaires-says-congress-must-142239366.html;_ylt=AmKi_0eL5SgJinP3zOqHOl.7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1Ym92NjQ5BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNidWZmZXR0c3VwZXI-?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

I agree with you on Perry, but I'd say Obama has been a mediocre president. To say he's been absolutely terrible would infer that he's done something scandalous or severely damaging to the country. When I say he's mediocre, it's because he tries too hard to compromise with extremists instead of exposing their lunacy and fighting back. I do have to give him credit for working in an insanely partisan atmosphere - probably the most difficult of any recent president - but I still knock him for regularly caving in. Probably my biggest disappointment in this regard is not doing enough to regulate Wall St and the banks to prevent another economic disaster. But he has also accomplished quite a few important things that go mostly unknown or forgotten by the public at large.

I thought the place was only good late at night after drinking. Even then it's not very good.

Funny, G.W. Bush gave an awkward back rub to an unsuspecting German Chancellor Merkel a few years back. Peculiar.

Don't forget: Someburger Ruggles's 11th St. Shade Southwell's Lola's There may be more, not to mention all the surrounding fast food burger joints. We are pretty saturated in burger places (yet sadly, not an authentic Thai or Indian place for miles).

Obama proposed restoring only the top two income tax brackets for families making more than $250K. So I still suspect most of their opposition to the tax increase is on idealogical grounds, or they just don't understand the proposal. True.

Some of those, particularly Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have come out publicly in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy. I suspect it's more the nouveau riche who are most against raising the nominal rate on the top income brackets. Conservatives in the middle class seem to take an idealogical position against eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, even if those taxes would help balance the budget and not directly affect those in the middle class.

Here's a neat budget puzzle to fix the deficit from last November http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html. I was able to solve the deficit via the combination of program cuts and tax increases listed below (about 50/50). If only the real world could be so easy and straightforward... - Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013 - Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013 - Return the estate tax to Clinton-era levels - Allow expiration of Bush tax cuts for income above $250,000 a year - Eliminate tax loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher - Bank Tax

I would say it's the opposite. The Heights as a whole does have some historic value, but on an individual basis most of the homes do not.

The diagram is simplistically based on the population density of the city. Even though Houston's density would allow some pockets for growing food, resource extraction, etc., the actual resource requirements of 6.9 billion would extend far beyond the city limits, to other continents. I would question if the watershed alone could support 6.9 billion in that area, considering that aquifers are already very low in some parts of Texas.

The President is merely calling for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, so the 33% bracket would go to 36%, and the 35% bracket would go to 39.6%. These are still low by historical standards, and unlikely to seriously affect high income folks. After all, we're only talking about the marginal income tax rate. A married couple making $250,000 would pay an additional $1,131 in taxes based on the current tax brackets if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated. And that's not even taking into account exemptions that reduce taxable income. Only those couples making over $379,150 would pay the 39.6% marginal rate. Eliminating these tax cuts would raise about $700B over the next decade and help balance the budget - something Bush didn't take into account when he passed the tax cuts without appropriate spending cuts.

I do agree that the tax code is a problem, and would love to see it simplified and bereft of loopholes and exemptions. A simpler system like what Red proposed might allow a massive reduction in the IRS and personal and corporate accountants, eliminating a lot of overhead and inefficiency spent managing our inefficient loophole-ridden tax system. But I don't know about animosity towards those earning $250,000…the angst seems to be aimed at vastly increasing income gap of the top 1%. For example, the average S&P 500 CEO is expected to make $11.4M in 2011, about 279 times more than the national average wage index, which has actually been falling in recent years. I don't suggest that the tax system should be used to punish people for their income or success, but it's common sense that those making $11.4M can afford to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those making $40K. The vast majority of American economists, regardless of their political leanings, support a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay a greater share at the higher income brackets and where essential fixed cost of living expenses are accounted for at the lower income brackets. At the $250,000 level, a married couple is only paying at the 33% rate for the last $37,700 of their income, so the extra 5% tax on the final 15% of their income should not be a major burden. I don't see how it's unfair if everyone pays the same rate for equivalent income, but the exemptions and loopholes do open the door for unfairness and I think they should be eliminated.

So, you're saying the poor have it made, and yet you feel sorry for those struggling to get by on $250,000 because they can't afford a private jet? I guess the family of four living on less than $22,350 just doesn't understand how lucky they are. Perhaps it's really just a fun adventure to live on $15/day or less per person.

Here is an interesting analysis on the topic: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=906 One notion I find interesting is that Americans are more concerned about equality of opportunity than unequal economic outcomes. To me, this sounds noble on the surface, but it ignores the fact that opportunity generally favors the wealthy, and that the tax cuts for the wealthy coincide with the gradual dismantling of the social safety net that affects a far greater number of Americans who's needs are more desperate. The income gap between rich and poor will only grow larger if the political right continues it's success at convincing the lower and middle class to vote in favor of the wealthy and against their own economic interests, and of course the conservative supreme court and the Citizens United ruling that favor the organized wealthy elite only seem to encourage this gap.

Wouldn't they be the opposite of liberal? lib•er•al: favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms

Saturdays can be surprisingly productive as well. It's even better if you have a massive dumpster blocking the view of the construction from the street. Just saying.

I went through the HAHC process this past spring, post-ordinance. I went in assuming they were using the new guidelines, but if that's incorrect, perhaps that explains why mine got approved so easily. Or it could be because my thoroughly-renovated property was considered a non-contributing structure, even while my neighbor's dilapidated and generic bungalow across the street is considered contributing. I did thoroughly review the ordinance restrictions before submitting the proposal to minimize potential issues, and my proposal sailed through their approval process as part of a consent agenda along with the majority. And looking at the meeting minutes from the most recent meeting posted (4/21), all of the proposals were approved that month. It's probably best to get in as soon as possible if the new rules are going to affect your plans (you'll have to submit a proposal at least 15 days prior to the next meeting to get on the agenda). The contacts listed on the CoA form were very helpful in getting through the process.