TheNiche

The idea is that if Lovett cleans it up to the standards set forth in law, and those standards turn out to have been inadequate, it isn't Lovett's fault that the law was inadequate. If a developer like Lovett was forced to take on liability for dangers that haven't even been identified as dangers yet, there's no way in hell that any developer would ever build anything on a superfund site, ever. It wouldn't be worth the risk.

Some parts of the Beltway have been reconstructed and have new debt associated with them, so in certain stretches, it is entirely possible that tolls are in line with expenses. On the whole, though, you're right. Operating costs are well below revenues. HCTRA takes the surplus money and puts it toward more rapid system expansion. Doesn't really bother me too much.

No, it is for my sake.

I have it on reliable sources from within TxDOT that there was some funny business going on. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), a reputable entity within A&M, provided TxDOT traffic volume data and projections from which to engineer modifications to the roadway that would help to reduce congestion. Undertaking those improvements would've required taking a few homes on either side of the freeway, and some of those homeowners were really unhappy but really well connected. So word came down from on high that those homeowners had to be placated, and folks at TxDOT modified the projections to fit the infrastructure that could be built witin the same ROW--just trenched--and deleted the originals. And that's the story of why Spur 527 sucks. There will not likely be a remedy for at least another couple decades.

No flame. When I speak to someone about zoning, I expect "zoning" to mean "zoning", not "deed restrictions", just as a discussion aboiut an "apple" ought to refer to an "apple", not an "orange".

I can know without trying. Empiricism is not the only theory of knowledge. You described zoning as such: You did not define zoning, any more than I might try and fail to define "war", "infrastructure improvements", or a "legal system" by the same criteria. They are all policies that relate to aspects of the geography of an area...well unless you want to redefine what is 'policy' or 'geography' to your liking. An imprecise description of zoning does not broaden its meaning.

That what you want to do could be done is not supportive of the assertion of yours that I've challenged. You say that it could be done without affecting any other part of the city. That's absolutely ludicrous. Oh, I see. Poor little dumb ol' me misunderstood. I thought that words were commonly understood symbols conveying a finite concept. But I'm clearly wrong. Words mean what you and only you intend them to convey. And if there are already words that mean what you intend to convey, but you don't know what they are, it's just understood that you ought to hijack a disimilar word and redefine it to your liking, right there on the spot. Anybody that can't understand what you mean is clearly retarded...like me, apparently.

Bull___. Zoning is a legal term. Its definition is not disputed.

Yes, you are. Insofar as the referendum allows METRO to built LRT or BRT, the FTA doesn't care what is actually chosen. But In order to grant federal funding, it takes more than that voters of a municipality want it; it requires an environmental impact study to assess whether it is worthy of funding. I'd argue that the methodology of those studies are on the whole pretty much worthless, but the FTA has to at least go through the motions of the process so as to plausibly appear fair-minded as it allocates its limited funding to some cities' proposed projects and not others.

That's absurd. Public policy does not take place in a vacuum. Neither of those places are zoned or even situated within municipalities. They are the outgrowth of a lax regulatory environment.

How about we just drop the pretense and start referring to our region as part of Central Texas?

You already live in a lab of sorts. Houston being the only major city that has never had zoning, it is completely atypical of most other large cities. It serves as an excellent study of urban form given a natural state and is frequently cited in academic studies of urban economics. If the idea of changing policies for experimentation's sake was adopted, it'd just be silly. Since no other city is like us, what might be learned from experiments in Houston couldn't be repeated predictably in other settings. That's the epitome of bad science, not only because its poor experimental design but because such experiments would have no practical application.

...perhaps I ought to have added a smiley.

Red's right. They're far too dangerous to be toys.

I agree about the setback comment, but Red's point was that enacting zoning for just a chunk of the City is actually a higher hurdle than is enacting zoning for the whole thing. METRO already has the power to do that within (I think) a quarter-mile of any LRT stop; it was a concession granted by the powers that be in order to stave off talk about zoning later on, once rail was built and nothing was happening. So far, however, they've been afraid to use it.

As a property owner looking to cash in on flagrant consumerism, I welcome bright and shiny people at every opportunity. In fact, I'm so ardent a supporter of the shiny that I hereby propose that the southeast line be realigned to terminate in Eastwood, right near one of my holdings--but not right out front because I wouldn't want to encourage street traffic of the "un-shiny" sort. Perhaps a block over. Screw the property owners on the other side; I'm more in need of profit than whoever those persons may be...they're probably less shiny than me anyway. Do not doubt my need, how could you possibly expect me to be happy...and I'm entitled to happiness, after all...how am I to afford a penthouse condominium in BLVD Place if the government won't provide me the resources? And hey, by them giving me money to buy a unit at BLVD Place, they're making that development all that much more likely. Two birds with one stone--clever, eh? ...but no, no, no, that's not what I meant. I'm not that clever. I'm going to need special treatment if you ever expect me to pull my weight. And then the east alignment can be shifted to a different commercial thoroughfare, where I have commercial property. It can terminate twelve feet west of that property's driveway, effectively blocking access to the parcel on the hard corner next door. Then I can buy that parcel and expand my holdings at a much reduced cost. And I like Trae's zoning idea. It should be implemented where I own property and only there. Then, once I've acquired the two contiguous properties and restored access to the one that lost it, I can replat, combine them, increase the universe of possibilities of what can be put there, get a zoning variance, and with the guarantee that I'll never have neighbors catering to the "un-shiny" ever again, can position the property to be highly desirable to a developer that will put high-density residential on the site. That's a value-add opportunity! It'll make me millions, and that's in the interest of society because, as the key politicians already know, I'm just a really nice guy. Never mind the demolition of historical buildings that were way too small to be able to accomodate many residents in some sort of a loft conversion. It's all towards the goal of neighborhood revitalization and transit-oriented development, after all, and we all want that...well except for the "un-shiny" and nobody cares about them...my god, most of them don't even speak "Shinglish".

Why?

There are some codes and variances that make urban development difficult. You'll get no argument from me about that, or lack of support when it comes to reworking them. But I have a very hard time buying the argument that local energy concerns are influencing planning policy at a local level. Heck, if they want to sell gasoline, the best policy to advocate is to allocate funds away from highway improvements, thus inducing greater congestion and reducing average mpg at a regional level. It goes against theory, but if experience is any indicator, congestion does not reduce the total amount of suburban development (although within a region, it may influence the cardinal direction of growth). In fact, congestion does a really good job at causing firms to relocate to suburban office buildings, closer to educated labor, where transit is often completely unavailable. I know its counterintuitive, but I think that there is a very compelling argument that the best way to foster the long-term viability of appealing urban environments in a region is to encourage the development of the urban core and of suburbs in a regulatory environment that is equally amenable to both, and with excellent highways that are complimented by transit. Developers do not doubt the popularity of such places. That has been proven time and time again throughout the country. The hard part is making the financials work. Those kinds of projects are just inherently more expensive, and the more expensive they are, the more limited is the market for them.

Different kinds of pollution, emitted in different places. ...but it actually doesn't matter all that much. Environmental Impact Statements are toothless by design. Something that was actually a rigorous study would occasionally result in pork not being approved. It's all lies, damned lies and statistics.

I don't think we've established that. What I think we can probably agree on is the middle-ground notion of different strokes for different folks. You're right that there are many cities that already provide a variety of urban environments. But there are only a few ways to bring that about; one of them is to have a substantial economic history dating back to before WW2; another is to have geographic impediments to movement; another is by government decree; a fourth is market demand. NYC is characterized by the first two, a city like Denver is characterized by the latter two, and Houston is characterized only the last. Each of the example cities afford an array of urban environments to the residents, albeit in different proportions and at different costs. IMO, we are the superior city because our costs of living are the lowest and because we largely do not interfere with personal preference.

I've only ever done one of these kinds of events, a Rendevous outside of Raton, NM with a period encampment circa 1849. There, its a pretty simple matter to join in. You show up, pay dues, avoid the use of modern technology, shoot at things with black powder firearms, cannon, and mortars, and do a lot of campfire cooking. But its more for personal satisfaction than actually trying to reenact something as a show. I'm curious whether there are any groups in Texas that do something similar and that aren't excessively family-oriented. I'm not so interested in Civil War stuff, though. Something focused on the Texas Revolution or the Republic of Texas would be more to my liking, since that's where some interesting family history is on my end.

I may be going out on a limb here, but individuals' friends typically share a fair number of traits, especially where socioeconomic background, cultural influences, and generational classification are concerned. So gauging your friends' reactions is probably not the most valid test of what counts for exotic or appealing to someone from a vastly different urban environment--like Beijing. And don't forget, after all, that even a city as urbane as New York has post-WW2 suburbs. We aren't exactly talking about an alien environment. I've heard mixed reviews from NYC and Boston transplants, personally. Some of them are so attached to the way of life from whence they came that they'll rent ridiculously expensive midrise and highrise apartments (which don't seem so badly priced to them) and go out of their way to resist change. Others end up in our furthest suburbs and take up back yard gardening, making a concerted attempt to enjoy something they never could've pulled off in NYC.

I've been told that we come in two flavors: 'high-as-a-kite' and the much less common 'just hard-wired that way'.

Probably for the better. Why they'd name their restaurant after a cleaning agent and infamous superfund site, I'll never know.

Sounds like you're describing a group of people that merely yearn for the exotic. Kind of like a 'grass is always greener' mentality. Take those street scenes in China as an example. To someone that actually lives there (i.e. not a tourist), it may be more vibrant than ever because 'luxury' retailers like KFC have moved in or because just a little ways from there, a new offramp has been completed from a new highway, bringing 'wealthy' people in cars to the neighborhood. And to a person from that perspective, a low-density environment in which nearly everybody can afford to own and use a car in an environment designed entirely with it in mind may seem like an obscene luxury, something exotic and completely foreign to them. It might just be appealing and exciting in the same sense that we see the neighborhood that they live in to be exotic.