TheNiche

What social contract? I didn't sign anything. I've never sworn an oath to that effect. I hereby renounce any such explicit or implied agreement.

Because the person attempting to kill everyone would be subject to reprisal. It's a pretty good disincentive for murder.

Real or perceived issues with 1) crime, 2) schools, or 3) commute.

The most important reason is that federal funding won't take place all at once because we've got to compete each year with other cities for what limited amounts are budgeted by congress, and congress is on the whole interested in equitable distribution of funds back to their constituencies. Another reason is that if you're expecting a region to grow steadily over the course of several decades, it is better to grow your infrastructure to match population growth, rather than expend resources all at once up front. This is supporting a concept of the time value of money. On a related note, the reason that cost increases over time usually don't matter is that they are inflationary. In the long term, inflation has zero economic impact.

$25 maintenance fee? Who's collecting it? I don't pay one of those.

I agree, the article was very poorly written and probably contained factual errors. What's new? :closedeyes:

A shotgun with an 18-inch barrel and loaded with birdshot is the way to do it. Either that or a pistol loaded with ratshot. Something that will injure and likely stop someone but not be fatal and that isn't likely to penetrate sheetrocked walls and still injure someone. And something where the defender doesn't feel the need to hesitate (or aim) so much before pulling the trigger.

Count me as one such person. I don't believe that people's rights to defend their persons or properties ought to be tied to age or gender, as you suggest.

To be completely fair, the Alexan Lofts were not developed by Trammell Crow Residential; it was a project undertaken by Alan Atkinson. Alexan complexes are most frequently built by TCR specifically to be Alexan, and they aren't nearly as unique or appealing. ...but to my knowledge, nobody has copywritten the phrase "luxury apartments", so it doesn't really matter what it looks like. Even a cheap tax credit complex built out of modular blocks on a factory floor and assembled on site, destined to sprout slimy growths on the shady sides of walls within two or three years, could be (and has been) described as luxury. ...but you know, considering the tenant base that they're going for, "luxury" might be an accurate descriptor, if only it is used as a relative term.

Commuter rail is about suburb-to-city or inter-city transit. Not intra-city; that's what LRT is for. Only a tiny percentage of commuter rail riders will be able to walk from home to a station; suburbs aren't bus-friendly enough to get people from their homes to the station; the vast majority will drive there. And if they're going to drive there, additional automobile-oriented infrastructure has to be built around those stations to handle them.

I didn't say anything about the Katy Freeway; that's a topic for another thread. I'm only talking about the pitfalls of the cost/benefit analysis as it pertains to this route. Which recent rail line was a private company?

Red, I think that we just concluded in essence the same thing, spun differently.

You know, I've been in homes with doors on such lubricated hinges that if the A/C comes on or someone opens a window, causing changes in air pressure, the doors move or close. I'd imagine explosives could do the job too. The only thing that makes me concerned is the dogs. For all I know, though, it was just a nest of rats or something else like that which got crushed.

There's already cheap housing close to and within town. I already told you where it can be found, and most of those neighborhoods are very stable. And don't forget that new affordable housing is created daily as buildings age. Why do I get the sense that you've either never been to Pasadena or that what you really want is for new relatively more costly housing to be built for use by poor people?

Unfortunately, those justifications for rail aren't as supportive as you might think. The tracks may allow for higher speeds, but if they put in many stops at all, then acceleration/deceleration and waiting at stations negates the time savings And it looks like they'll have to put in Clear Lake and Dickinson stations (at least) if they want ridership that is even remotely acceptable. Road maintenance is only based in part on traffic volume, and then passenger vehicles aren't nearly as destructive to roadbeds as is truck traffic and time. Commuter rail also only makes vehicle trips shorter and does nearly nothing to eliminate their number, so local streets are still impacted just as much. In fact, streets around the stations may now require greater maintenance and expansion than would otherwise be the case to accomodate rerouted traffic patterns. If the train is powered by a diesel engine, then there's still pollution with local impacts. And don't forget that the pollution emitted in the name of transit has to be thought of not only in terms of operation, but also for construction of the systems and vehicles. And as I stated earlier, people in cars still have to get to the rail station, so there's still output. Increased tax revenues are hard to justify if you consider that people moving to new multifamily housing around the stations would likely have just moved to multifamily housing not around the stations if the stations weren't there. It changes the location of the tax base, and may have some slight effect on the value, but for the most part, it really isn't very supportive. I'm not saying that these items won't produce public benefit, just that it's much smaller than most people expect because they are looking for total benefits associated with commuter rail rather than marginal benefit as compared with a no-build or other scenario. I look forward to completely and totally debunking this group's study.

Good landscaping not only costs money to maintain, but also to develop in the first place. With land prices as they are, it just doesn't make sense to allocate very much open space. Most townhome buyers would just rather have a few more neighbors than have to absorb the land cost themselves and then have to pay money for maintenance on top of that.

So what you're saying is that there is initially high enough demand from households to support densification, and that once densification takes place, with townhomes being nearly ubiquitous, the pool of prospective buyers becomes even larger? I'd agree with that. But I wouldn't agree that something like a demolition ban would preserve an older stock of inexpensive housing. It just goes contrary to the laws of supply and demand. Super Neighborhoods numbers: 84,85,11,86,5,3,4,5,6,13,45,46,47,49,45,50,54,53,58,57,52,55,51,56,57,65,70,69,6 ,71,72,73,75,76,79,77,40,38,37,39,36,30,29,26,27, and 25. Also, not shown: Pasadena.

Check your logic. The higher densities that townhomes provide allow for a greater percentage of householders that want to live in the urban core to actually live there. If no townhomes were built, there'd still be about the same number of householders wanting to live in the urban core but many fewer housing units. What do you think would happen to used home prices in that case? If present-day experience is any indication, the folks that service townhomes will drive, carpool, or take the bus.

Nope. More than likely 25th @ The Strand.

You know, I've personally always liked those townhomes, but living next to a park in a transitional neighborhood is just asking for problems. I'm sorry to hear about the goings-on tonight.

Have you ever been inside a unit? It's nice. Finger spent a lot of money on amenities, upgrades, and really nice finishes...not to mention that its a really well located highrise with a Montrose address.

"Walking around the area" is a poor excuse for reporting. Nevertheless, they might be onto something with that southwest corner of Dowling and Texas/Harrisburg. One full block of the four that would be required is already owned by Harris County, and the few other warehouses right there are in pretty bad shape and don't have much character to them. There's also a large abandoned railroad ROW that cuts diagonally through two blocks. Those four blocks are adjacent to some closed streets that were converted to landscaped pedestrian areas as part of the Ballpark at the Lofts apartments development. Also, the East Downtown TIRZ has planned for a long time to convert the full-block gravel lot tucked into the Lofts into a park, so that could be a nice gathering place for sports-related events (complimenting Discovery Green), whether they're at MMP or the soccer stadium. These blocks are also adjacent to the MMP parking lots, which means that they can sometimes be shared facilities. In fact, by getting more use (i.e. revenue) out of the MMP parking lots, there might just barely be an economic justification for developing the 6.75 blocks there with assloads of structured parking with a residential/retail wrap. Considering what's already right there, that'd yield a fully-contiguous 15.5-block area (50 acres, including streets) of nothing but four-or-more-story buildings and one full-block park, all with light rail running through it. In comparison to Dallas' Victory Park, 75 acres, it makes a pretty good show...and that's all without actually requiring that some private entity purchase additional land for new construction. Now to be completely clear, I don't care for Victory Park. But I own properties in the East End, and yuppies do wonders for land values. So I don't know about anyone else, but this is something I could get excited about.

Nope. Take, for instance, Title III of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits municpalities and states from preventing any citizens from using any facilities. I like that. Title VII, I don't like. You should generally avoid speaking categorically in discussions of far-reaching topics, using words like "all". You'll be wrong less frequently. If by stating that you think that I'd prefer to live in the 1950's, that means that I don't like EOE law, you'd be right...but that sure is a funny way to ask whether I like EOE law or not. The concept of theft is well-understood and need not be a concept adopted into law to hold meaning. 'Person A' owns 'Thing 1'; 'Person B' doesn't own 'Thing 1'. Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' place positive value on 'Thing 1'. 'Person B' takes 'Thing 1' for their own use without 'Person A's consent.

The body of law that pertains to civil rights is far too extensive for you to conclude that I'm opposed to all civil rights legislation. There is some I like, and some I do not. As for which era I'd prefer to live in, although it'd be ever-so-tempting to go back to the later quarter of the 18th century, I prefer the present and future. Better absolute standard of living. Not really. I may not recognize the government's right to do a lot of things, but I recognize their ability. Clearly what has been passed by the house could become law and could be used as intended.