mattyt36

As stated above, the Central Houston guy said 30K, so who knows what definition he is using? I can get the squishy boundaries to the north and west but including all of the residential areas of the South Loop, which must be where the majority of those 42K people are, and implying those are residents of a comparable "business district" seems a bit of a stretch to me, like including Midtown with Downtown. Congress (or Ida B. Wells) would seem the more appropriate boundary, at least to me.

It also says: Since 2010, the Loop—defined in the Census data as the neighborhood between the Chicago River to the north and west, Lake Michigan to the east, and Roosevelt Road to the south—grew more than any other Community Area in Chicago. Which is a much more expansive definition of what I have always understood "the Loop" to be, i.e., the CTA "L" loop. But if that is the proper definition, then, sure, I could see that area having 30K residents.

The Central Houston guy stated that 30K would be on the scale with downtown Chicago (he stated "Inside the Loop," but it doesn't seem to me that inside the loop has 30K residents) and Los Angeles. I guess Downtown LA has that much, but it seems to be a lot larger geographically than Downtown Houston. Incidentally, I think Downtown Dallas is around 10K as well, but I must say the times I've been there, it seems a lot more "lived in." It's probably more related to the more "organic" grid, with many of the north-south streets not as wide as the east-west streets and the natural axis along Commerce, Main, and Elm.

I listened to this podcast, which had as its guest Bob Eury's successor at Central Houston (someone who most recently was head of some Hollywood BID). Anyway, he stated the organization's goal is 30K residents in downtown Houston . . . he didn't give a timeframe on that, but that is about triple the current number. Seems like probably a good 20-year goal. Obviously it was all kick-started by the DLI incentive packages, and there have been a couple of non-DLI projects since, but that's a lot of new units to deliver. Seems like still a ways to go in getting the momentum going towards tripling the units downtown. Looped In Podcast: Interview with Kris Larson and Angie Bertinot of Central Houston on downtown Houston's recovery post-pandemic (houstonchronicle.com)

I'll go with the vivid imagery. Figurative language is so fun. I'm filing it away! Amalham, send me your address for the royalty checks!

"Opinionated sorcery" DAMN . . . why didn't I come up with that?! 🤣

Well that's quite the development.

It ain't just the cities. Rural America Reels From Violent Crime. ‘People Lost Their Ever-Lovin’ Minds.’ - WSJ

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, that is among the nicest Embassy Suites in the system! (We Houstonians know not to judge a book by its cover!) Or at least it was the last time I stayed there 10 years ago. How time has flied. Or flew, as the case may be.

Well, they passed a law and then upheld it. I guess big to some, no news to others. For me, it's nice to show that they are committed. It is something one hears from most visitors, the inner core of the City is quite nice now, but getting here from the airports is quite the eyesore.

What is the dotted line on the Eastex Freeway?

Looks like my kind of place!

Potentially dumb question but could the transaction not have been structured either as (1) as a contract for a purchase at a later date; or (2) TxDOT owning the property and hiring a property manager? I guess of the two, (2) would be more problematic for the reasons you state and other, more practical ones, but either would allow the property to continue producing income, which would have the effect of reducing the effective purchase price.

If of interest to anyone other than I, according to Central Houston, this will be the 10th largest residential building in downtown Houston by number of units are: 1. Market Square Tower 463 2. 500 Crawford 400 3. Houston House Apartments 394 4. Brava 373 5. Catalyst 361 6. One Park Place 346 7. SkyHouse Houston 336 8. SkyHouse Main 336 9. The Rice 312 10. Trammell Crow Co. | High Street Residential (Parkside Residences) 309 The Star is the next largest at 286. Of the above, only 500 Crawford is not a high-rise. Of other high rises, ARIS has 274 and Camden has 271. Interestingly enough there are 2 single-family residences listed, 110 Milam (the distinctive building on the south side of the Bayou) and the National Cash Register Building (515 Caroline). The WL Foley Building (214 Travis) has 2 units. https://www.centralhouston.org/filer/0/1614996509/468/

Have they? Enlighten me. Likewise, it doesn’t make it true, so let’s stop with the hollow and circular logic and just speak directly and to the point. So, at the end of the day this isn’t about the statistics (reminder … there were other statistics quoted in the release that had numbers well above 3%) whether they’re factual as stated or not, it’s about a press release, which almost by definition is pure puffery. Bellyaching and blaming Democrats, indeed. I do think it’s worth pointing out that no one on this thread, myself included, think that putting out a press release for a 3% reduction in the murder rate is warranted. But I also don’t think it’s sinister or disingenuous or “fake news” as others on here seem to. Puffery, sure, but you guys are supposed to love puffery. You voted its spirit animal into office for President of the United States in 2016. Maybe we should change the title of the thread to “Mayoral Press Release: Silly or Not Silly?” because at the end of the day that seems to be the thrust of our discussion.

Not saying you are--what I said was if there were fluctuations in crime rates from time to time (assuming you or no one you knew was not directly affected) would you change your behavior? I think you've pretty much confirmed here the answer is no, which is what I and probably 99% of people do (if you exclude from doing something about it bellyaching and blaming Democrats, of course . . . this is the boilerplate response for a good chunk of the population, for which there is plenty of evidence in this thread). One is either murdered by one someone knows or it's entirely random. There's not much people can do to counteract the random except avoid places in which random shootings are, well, not that random in occurrence. Oh, and Augie will insist, arm one's self. I've stated my opinion earlier that going to biweekly meetings about crime for 15+ years to somehow feel better about it just doesn't make much sense to me, but I understand there are different perspectives. Yes, another thing everyone can agree on. Innocent people being victims of crime is bad. On this note, however, we've heard a lot about repeat offenders. I have yet to see any statistics, however, linking any of the increase in crime to repeat offenders. In my sense it's an empty observation. "Oh, have you seen crime has gone up? Can you believe that a lot of these crimes are done by repeat offenders? Why aren't we do something about repeat offenders?" Seems like a conversation that could've taken place in 1954, 1982, or 2022. Why? Because it's pretty much a truism. Repeat offenders, er, repeat offend. Quelle surprise. Now I know the Harris County Republican Party is trying to link that to changes in bail requirements under the Hidalgo administration . . . I mean something like that should not be subject to debate. It either is a major, major increase in crimes being caused by repeat offenders or there are other contributors. Remember, repeat offenders have been repeat offending since the beginning of history . . . also, remember, there is a balance to be struck in designing an entire criminal justice system around the maybe 0.5% of repeat offenders who end up killing someone upon release and the others who do not (although these days I think there are plenty of Americans who think criminals should just be locked up for life, regardless . . . well, criminals of a certain demographic if we're honest). I'm a bit "skeptical" (as @trymahjong would say) because (1) it is so overtly political; and (2) there has been a nationwide increase in crime since the pandemic. It seems as if this question were actually answered--not in awful anecdotes or tragic news stories or political fingerpointing--maybe we could get somewhere. Instead (sadly), the typical response is one like @august948's . . . "Well, a Democrat is in charge, so you should just expect looting, rape, murders, and pillaging cuz the Democrats love the criminals." (I mean, this is just such a TIRED, TIRED trope, but I guess not for some. Moreover, he somehow makes these comments unironically while complaining about Turner being too political, BUT I DIGRESS.) If I've missed anything in the local media, please share so I can be educated about it.

You see, now, Augie, this, I would say, is way more in the spirit of "fake news." More like, "The Republican propaganda networks have aligned the Democrats nationally with higher crime rates, looting, burning, riots, and defunding the police." Of course, but the question is, are you going to make material changes to your life or start attending meetings or obsessing about statistics to feel safer because the murder rate goes up or down a few ticks? Now I will say, the only (well visible) crime that I encounter on a regular basis and that seems to have increased greatly is vehicle theft, just tons of broken glass in and around the streets and lots surrounding Buffalo Bayou Park. You'd think if it were that localized HPD could set something up, but I guess not. Maybe you can ask them at your next meeting?

“Everybody’s gotta have a job”

And I find myself again not feeling any more or less safe, and I question why anyone would feel any differently.

@Blue Dogs, I have never seen "Master Chef," but shall give it a try based on your recommendation. Do they film the season in a single city like Top Chef? I do wonder how Houston was selected for Top Chef . . . I know our culinary scene gets a lot of press, but I wonder how much any incentive packages, etc. played into the location decision. I remember reading somewhere (wish I could remember where so I could share) that HoustonFirst was investing money into increasing the City's profile through productions such as these. The last show I remember that gave Houston a try was "Married to Medicine: Houston," which got canceled after 1 season because there was such little drama, which I thought was a fine testament to the City and how we generally get along relatively well. The biggest shade thrown in that show was one of the women telling another, "You're so Beaumont." I thought Buddha was arrogance personified, a real jerk! At the Judge's Table when the others were being reviewed and they split to him, he had a look in his face like he was ready to jump the judges, screaming, "Just give it to me already!" Evelyn did Houston proud. And Sarah's story was fun to watch. All in all, I don't think the show did the best job showcasing Houston (must've seemed pretty bland to those watching who have no knowledge of the City), but the worst was the fact they ended in Tucson . . . blech! I know they typically do that, but I just wish there was a better finale to the Houston episodes than the Galveston fish fry.

I'd say it's pretty much a standard press release. Hell, they didn't even say it was directly responsible, which is arguably an improvement over most press releases from even the private sector. (You should read the "hot off the presses" United press release this week on its new amenity kits, and then see how many "news" outlets regurgitated the content with the same aplomb. Boy did it make a free tube of Chap Stick seem like way more than it actually is!) The nearly 3% decline in the city's homicide rate is an indication of the efficacy of the One Safe Houston initiative, a comprehensive public safety plan aimed at holistically addressing and in some cases rebuilding the public safety ecosystem in Houston. I don't think they're playing any games with the time period, either. It's not February-May, or second week of March-third week of May. It's from the beginning of the year to the most recently available month. (I've already said my piece on the 5 being insignificant, although it does seem the drop in other types of crimes may be way more material.) That said, I'd still say calling it "fake news" is a bit dramatic. Perfectly understandable. (Although I must point out that 187 murders over 151 days equals an average of 1.24 murders/day by my calculation, and since you can't commit a quarter of a murder, that means on some days it's 1 and some days it's 2, some bad days it may be 5, and I'm sure there are several days with none, so I wouldn't say that 2 murders in one day in and of itself disproves the statistic being quoted.) To each their own! I certainly am in no place to lecture someone who has invested so much time over the past 15+ years. I'd say your feelings on the matter are definitely worth more than mine.

The numbers they are advertising are a 3% drop in the HOMICIDE rate, which of course is a subset of the CRIME rate. So one can go down while the other is going up. (Although they do mention drops in 3 other categories—robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults.) I’m sure you know that, and I’m not trying to split hairs, I just think that if people in this country could agree on basic facts again, it’d move the ball down the field at least a couple yards. Feeling “safe” is definitely based in large part on perception. And if one spends a lot of time at HPD meetings going over crime statistics (which I’m not criticizing in any way … perhaps you’re a business owner in a particularly affected area or, especially, have been directly affected yourself), it wouldn’t surprise me if they would leave you feeling less safe. That goes for me, too. I think I’m happier not knowing, to be honest. People told me for years to stop watching the news, and I finally did, and I think my life is at the very least marginally better for it. Regardless, from a statistical perspective I’d say a 3% drop is probably insignificant. (The other statistics seem MUCH more material.). I certainly wouldn’t put a press release out about it, or expect to get feted in Washington. And any link between that insignificant number and a program is, if course, subjective. All of the above said, is what you describe a feeling or do you believe the statistics are being falsified? Or perhaps in your neighborhood they’re still going up while going down elsewhere? There’s of course a big difference between these 3 statements. Anyhoo, here’s to hoping by the end of the year the 3% reduction somehow becomes a 10% reduction and the crime rate in total comes down as well.

Well, in fairness, the 3% decrease in the homicide rate is either real or not, and shouldn't be subject to debate, wouldn't you agree? The OP stated that his personal experience does not jibe with the claim. Even though his personal experiences may not jibe with the claim, that doesn't automatically mean it's "fake news," correct? The Mayor's press release states: May 31, 2022 -- Mayor Sylvester Turner and the Houston Police Department announced today that for the first time in more than a year, Houston’s homicide rate is showing a decline. As of today, there is an unofficial number of 187 homicides in Houston thus far in 2022 compared to 192 homicides at this time last year. The nearly 3% decline in the city's homicide rate is an indication of the efficacy of the One Safe Houston initiative, a comprehensive public safety plan aimed at holistically addressing and in some cases rebuilding the public safety ecosystem in Houston. https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2022/decrease-homicide-rates.html#:~:text=The nearly 3% decline in,public safety ecosystem in Houston. If the 187 is accurate and the 192 is accurate, then the "nearly 3%" is accurate. One could argue, wow, only 5 fewer murders, are you kidding me? Perfectly valid. One could argue, wow, only a 3% reduction, why don't you call me when you hit 10%? Also valid. Or one could just say, "192 murders in 5 months?! That seems like it's still a pretty big problem, so why are you tooting your own horn?" That seems to jibe with @trymahjong's observation. But for it to be "fake news," either the 187 would have to be inaccurate or the 192 would have to be inaccurate. Or both. Or the "nearly 3%" calculation. What is your claim, Augie? For me, as a resident of the City of Houston, I have obviously not been murdered, don't know anyone else who has been murdered, don't know anyone who knows anyone who has been murdered or attempted murdered, can't say I've seen anything close to one transpiring, and, for that reason, I don't feel any less safe than I did 5 years ago. If that experience changes next week, well I'm sure my opinion will change. There may be stories from time to time on the local news with really, really bad and really, really sad circumstances for murder, but it's been that way my whole life. Not trying to discount the murders here, all murders are of course bad, but I would argue sensationalizing it without context is as well, especially for political reasons. If @trymahjong has personal and pervasive experiences as a victim of crime, well it totally makes sense to me that he would think 3% is nothing to write home about and is a waste of time and that it would be overtly political to advertise such “small potatoes.”

OMG … PROGRESS!!!! 😢