TheNiche

If the poster's concerns were legitimate--and they aren't because the obligations that the City would have to provide for aren't worth the value of his/her property taxes--then it'd mean something that you're wrong on this point. They don't receive HPD service and pay for all their own infrastructure through a MUD. Also, the City is not above annexing strip centers without annexing neighborhoods, so their sales taxes already go to fund the city services that they aren't using all of. Not getting annexed, actually, is sort of the worst of all possible worlds for the people who are against it.

Nope, only for a little over a half mile, and I say that from experience. But it only blares its high-pitched little horn at gated crossings, so that's not a problem that affects all neighborhoods.

No, I haven't been arguing that it's OK to litter. Just that it's unnecessary or perhaps shortsighted to add a tax to plastic bags specifically intended to carry a food item as opposed to general merchandise. Simple mitigation techniques are effective enough for our circumstances given the existing policy environment.

I'm thinking that that's not going to be an issue. It's not part of the original campus, not unlike the strip of land between Fannin and Main, where for-profit activity is allowed. Even if TMC, Inc. owns the land or somehow is a party to a deed covenant that'd prevent for-profit users, TMC, Inc. and BCM would probably come to an agreement that would undo deed covenants in order to prevent the bankruptcy or an impairment of function of BCM as a TMC member institution. I know that state law does provide for that possibility. For instance, some old oilfields that were sold decades ago by companies that are now ExxonMobil used to have deed restrictions against their development in order to limit environmental liabilities that might've arisen from future legislation regarding substances that weren't yet defined as pollutants. But in recent years, private developers have successfully negotiated with XOM to modify some of those deed covenants...but only for commercial development exclusive of residential. So it can be done...probably just as long as it isn't on the original TMC campus.

All the same, surely you can understand why the owner of a club would frown on it. If even one uptight, ignorant, anti-smoking asshole in the whole crowded venue mistakenly reported it to the City as a violation of the smoking ban, the owner would probably get hassled for it.

There isn't. They're expanding into two different Class B towers. And they won't want to relocate into a shiny new building because they'll probably end up paying close to twice as much rent per square foot after taking into consideration that they can keep tenant improvement allowances low at their existing locations and bargain more effectively with their current landlord.

KBR is consolidating the Clinton Drive campus jobs into their downtown towers.

Scoscfellow didn't turn up any Google hits, so...I don't know.

It took a long, LONG time for University General Hospital to sign as a tenant for the building at Fannin & Knight after a big name (possibly BCM) backed out of a long-term lease back in 2005-ish. I think that the wait may have even bankrupted the original developer. Office, medical office, and lab buildings in the TMC not built for a proprietary user are just like that. That's also why Lyme Properties backed out of a deal on Holcombe and why it took Metrontario so long to meet pre-leasing requirements before they could kick off their project, also on Holcombe. If BCM is so desperately in need of cash that it needs to dump this new facility into the private sector, then they're really in for a world of hurt. HCA would be the only user I can think of without a new market entrant from out of town showing up...but do you think that a for-profit non-boutique hospital can be competitive in the TMC? Do you think that it'd be wishful thinking to hope that an entity like Mayo Clinic could come to the rescue?

Since engineers don't exercise influence over what kinds of products are produced by refiners or ultimately demanded by other firms or the government or consumers, I don't really see that your hopes are especially well grounded. You may as well be one of those SSP built-it-now-build-it-bigger-build-it-denser creeps that suggests that the solution to home builders going out of business is that they need to start developing more high rise apartments in more urban settings...but (apart from the high school contingent, possibly) I don't think that even they could be so asinine. And I'm still not sure what you're talking about when you describe his points of view as lacking concern for others.

Having actually read through some of these kinds of studies, I've always had difficulty applying them to different cities or even to different neighborhoods within the same city in many cases. There are just too few transit systems, too many different ways that transit is physically implemented, and too many different variations of urban form and special circumstances such as are often tied to historical legacy or peculiarities of geography. So getting a consistent sample of sufficient size for statistical analysis such as would allow for meaningful predictive analysis proves very difficult. An reasoned analysis of comparable case studies is the better route for gaining predictive insights.

I just scanned through his comments, but from what I read, you were somewhat provocative and he was being level-headed. It's not as though his point was that it's OK to run down bicyclers, like you see on the chron.com forums. So yeah, I stand by my assertion that your comments about him are unwarranted.

Actually, I should specify that I am referring to the North Slope of ANWR, which basically looks like southern Brazoria, Matagorda, or Wharton counties, except that there's no prime farmland, even fewer people, less biological diversity...but probably bigger mosquitoes. The photos you've seen on TV or in print media are typically of the mountainous parts of ANWR, where recreational opportunities are somewhat better (in the brief summer season).

The device shown in the photo is performing as intended. That's how the bayou shores in Memorial Park seem so pristine and remote.

It's probably good that you aren't a stone's throw from light rail. You'll be able to use the service, but without enduring the extra noise, hustle, and bustle that would be off-putting for someone who owns a townhome or house. The only caution that I'd look into would be whether there are any new gated rail crossings where the train will be required to blow its horn. The pitch of that horn would get annoying real fast. Otherwise, though, I think that it'll either be a neutral impact or slightly positive.

jgriff provided unsolicited assistance to me in my job search recently. So yeah, I don't think that those comments are really fair to him. Yep, that's me. I can't ever imagine kayaking around in the Pacific Ocean many hundreds of miles from land, however. And I'm certainly never going to be sailing or otherwise boating there, for the same reasons that the trash accumulates in that area...no wind and vast amounts of seaweed. I'm OK with trash in this area for the same reason I'm OK with developing ANWR. It's vast, ugly, uninhabited, and very nearly devoid of recreational opportunity. If a tree falls in the forest... To draw another comparison to ANWR, I have to wonder whether--in the same way as that a hot pipeline in the tundra creates new ecosystems and adds to biological diversity--whether heaps of accumulated trash and seaweed might actually provide a boon to aquatic wildlife that otherwise wouldn't have stood a chance. ...not that I care, or anything. But it could prove an interesting way of defusing the arguments of aesthetic environmentalists.

Sure, far better than a parking garage. And if not on the MMP lots, then there are still enough other privately-owned vacant lots that'd pick up on the action.

Nah, that's not it. A big corporation with good credit could've made the deal happen in one form or another. And probably on good terms. The reason they're staying in Class B space downtown is a simple matter of that they can renew a long term lease at ridiculously good rates right now because the owners of these buildings know that it'll be all but impossible (being undercut in a bad market by Class A competitors) to fill the space for years into the future if KBR leaves. KBR found themselves in an extremely powerful bargaining position and is merely exploiting it to the fullest.

FWIW, citykid, I still think it's a stupid idea. I can't figure out where there are any synergies between it and the other planned uses that make the stadium so compelling as a component...or how it's going to get financed. This plan also doesn't play into the soccer tailgating culture that we've heard so much about.

Bryan, the scope of your comments appeared to be limited to the United States when you posted what I was responding to, and you seem to have tried to refute my criticism with a graph that illustrates NOT ONLY that the population growth rate in developed nations such as the U.S. is anything but geometric...but that the population growth rate in developing nations has now demonstrated a second inflection point. Look, this is a simple argument. Just google around for Census population counts by decade and import the data into Excel. Then run a quick formula to show what the percentage rates have been. As I recall, they top out at about 35% growth per decade (natural + immigration - emigration) in the mid-1800's and pretty steadily decline to around 8% or 9% over the last couple of decades. If we aren't witnessing economic growth at historic levels, cannot compete within the manufacturing sector, and threats to our economic hegemony, we need look no further than that very very basic data set. And since you seem intent on discussing Hispanic issues...I AGREE with you that a mono-cultural set of source countries are a problem. I'd like to see that problem resolved through more equitable immigration policy, and I'm hoping that this is a place where Obama really shines...Bush's policy proposals weren't bad either, but he'd already spent too much political capital on the war to accomplish anything by the time that immigration became a hot button issue.

jgriff said that he's involved in building the plants. The problem with that is that if the market for their refined products contracts, then he doesn't just have to wait until demand starts growing again for his sector to start hiring...he has to wait until demand fully recovers AND exceeds what it had been at the peak of the market before he can expect to add new capacity. That's why I've been out of work so long and am seeking a career change. It's the same story in commercial real estate or any other specific field whose growth is driven by general economic growth. It'll be YEARS before the most highly technical skills I gained in that kind of position are even transferable between industries again, much less demanded in my former industry. ...and that's the short story of how the Air National Guard or Naval Reserve is probably going to end up paying for my MBA, CFA, and CMA.

That's not accurate at all. The rate of population growth has declined significantly since the 1970's; the fertility rate more than the immigration rate. In order to assure our economic, monetary, and military hegemony in global affairs, it is essential that the rate of population growth be sustained at a reasonably high rate. This is what allows wages to be sufficiently low that our manufacturing sector is not undercut by the third world. The only way to accomplish that when U.S. citizens opt to have fewer than two children per couple is by allowing for an ever more lax standard for immigration. Yet, in the context of American history, I don't think that it has ever been more difficult to immigrate and become naturalized. In that context, it should not come as a surprise that illegal immigration is so prevalent. We created the incentive and allowed the opportunity. And to our long-term strategic benefit, people came here.

Vapid rhetoric does not influence my opinion on this matter.

All I'm saying is that a non-expert should not rush to judgment in this case and that the so-called expert that's calling the shots has screwed up royally in the past on these kinds of deals. Take that as you will, but I just see a red flag with this kind of deal and am hoping that the board is paying close attention.

Reeealy!? Golly gee, I'd never have guessed. And I'd never dream of being anal retentive or sarcastic on HAIF. [facepalm]