dalparadise

Dear genius, The context of this particular discussion is what we should do as individuals to prepare for a hurricane -- whether we should evacuate or not, specifically. So, if you think it's ridiculous to keep a gas tank full in case I'm ordered to evacuate or to stock a little extra food and water in case of a power outage when a hurricane enters the Gulf, then so be it.

Well, even IAH experienced gusts (not sustained) of hurricane-force winds. Alicia was a wierd one, because it exhibited a "double eye" at landfall, producing some of its highest winds and rainfall on its "weak" western side. The sustained winds at Hobby were, as you say, a Cat 1 velocity. However, gusts up to the upper levels of Cat 2, almost Cat 3 were measured at Hobby. I know that sustained winds are the measure of a hurricane's force, but it doesn't make those gusts any less destructive. I also believe that a 94 kt. wind gust will rip the roof off a lot of houses built in the last 20 years. The bottom line to all of this is as you say-- for Houston proper, it's all about flooding. A slow moving storm, big or small, can devastate Houston with 20' inches of rain in an already saturated condition. For the metropolitan area down 45 south, a big Hurricane is a wind and storm surge problem. The way the bay comes up all the way to East Houston, that could be a big deal for a lot of people -- roughly the population equivilent of Fort Worth. Alicia hit on Galveston Island. Farther South, around Freeport and a bigger storm could mean destruction like we've never imagined. I plan to be ready to act responsibly, regardless of what "The Niche" says. EDIT: I just found this: http://chps.sam.usace.army.mil/USHESdata/A...meteorology.htm Interesting.

...which is exactly what I meant when I said, "We should imagine the worst-case scenario so we can plan accordingly and change those plans as the outcome deviates from that worse-case scenario."

"Deutschbags" is a quote from the movie, Beerfest, now playing on HBO.

Terms like "highly unlikely," "likely be moving fast enough" and "really wouldn't be all that much water" are precisely the kinds of statements that fuel the doubt and insanity. We should imagine the worst-case scenario so we can plan accordingly and change those plans as the outcome deviates from that worse-case scenario. I believe most homes in this area are built to withstand up to 110 mph winds. That seems pretty simple. If the forecast is for greater than 110mph to pass over your home and your home is your intended shelter, you should leave. If you know you are prone to flooding -- and recent years should be good indicators -- you should leave. Don't do it in a panic. Don't ignore evacuation orders. Don't go out of sequence. And don't talk out of your ass about what is "highly unlikely". Some of the worst disasters in history were highly unlikely. We should be adults, act like adults, plan like adults and execute those plans like adults. Playing the odds and hoping that the "highly unlikely" won't happen here is just foolish. After all, the entire Allison event was "highly unlikely," as she wasn't even a hurricane, wasn't it?

Yes, to most outsiders, Houston and Dallas are incredibly similar -- to the point of being almost indistinguishable. International visitors usually think Houston just sucks a little less.

But don't NOT LEAVE if you should -- just do it when you should. A CAT 4-5 storm hitting Freeport or just north of there represents a catastrophic scenario for Brazoria, Galveston and Southeastern Harris Counties. Even as far inland as Sugar Land, in Ft. Bend County might see wind speeds strong enough to substantially damage homes. During Rita, the town of Silsbee, some 65-70 miles inland had homes with roofs blown off, as the eye wall passed directly over it as a CAT 3. A Freeport landfall could cause a storm surge in Galveston Bay and up the Houston Ship Channel, similar to the one that originally flooded New Orleans in Katrina, leading to the failures of the levees there that drained Lake Pontchartrain into the city. We don't face a similar residual flooding scenario, but if the storm surge backed up into the bayous, flooding them, then the the storm tracked north, flooding rivers upstream, you could be looking at 3-4 days of dangerous flood conditions, similar to Allison. The initial storm surge flooding could devastate everything from Galveston to the Loop, along I-45, from the shoreline to about a mile west of the freeway. That's 150 square miles or so of flooding and probably close to 300,000 people displaced. The wind damage would be more widespread. Alicia proved that the coastline is not as good a windbreak as we may have thought, as CAT 2-3 strength winds made it as far north as The Heights and White Oak Bayou flooded the area for the first time in just about anybody's memory in 1983. No -- don't panic. Don't take it too lightly, either. If you live south of the South Loop and the predicted landfall of a 4-5 storm looks like it will strike somewhere south of you, you should evacuate as directed, during the allotted times. A place like Montgomery County, or West, out I-10 should be fine. If you live North of the South Loop and South of Beltway 8, you should probably board-up windows and stock enough food and water for 4-5 days without electricity or water. If you live close to a bayou, you should probably consider evacuating with the coastal people. Now, in less than a CAT 4, only people within about a 5-10 mile radius of the path, up to 20-30 miles inland probably need to evacuate. The rest can probably ride it out just fine with the proper provisions. Of course, there is that little problem of unpredictable paths...

Gay or straight, attempting to make a glory hole hook-up in an airport restroom is not exactly Senatorial behavior. He's already pled guilty to being a freak.

I've been there and agree that it's pretty good. I'd put it a notch above the chains. It didn't seem like the good ol' street pizza you find on every NY corner, though.

This could end up turning into one of those Pasadena vs. Garland threads.

I've had a good slice or two there before. Maybe I was drunk.

Pizza in New York is everywhere and it's delicious. It's grab-and-go pizza, though, not really "restaurant" pizza. I prefer a NY slice to Chicago-style. In Houston, think Frank's, Late-night Pie or Romano's. New York pizza is pretty dry of sauce. The crust is slightly charred and has big yeast bubbles in it. It is jaw-numbingly chewy, salty and dusted with semolina. Basic cheese or one-two toppings is the staple. Ingredients are fresh and flavorful. the sauce should be tangy and rich in tomato, oregano and garlic flavors. A pint of Brooklyn Lager and the Giants on TV go nicely with that. I think most pizza in Manhattan is pretty much the same. It's a convenience, more than anything -- like hot dog or pretzel carts. I know most New Yorkers would kill me for saying that. But, try Ray's at various locations around Manhattan. It's as good a NY slice as any I've found. Don't make it your "good meal" though. Make it a lunch thing that you eat while walking to something on your itenerary. For a good meal you won't be self-conscious eating alone (I'm assuming that's why you were asking about a pizza joint), I'd suggest Uptown Lounge, on 3rd at about 88th St. The subway is just a couple of blocks from there, so even though it's a little off the beaten path for visitors, it's easy to get to. The place is more of a cocktail lounge than a restaurant, but the food is terrific. The prices are more neighborhood friendly than tourist-gouging, as people eat here regularly who don't cook. It is moderately crowded most nights, dark and sleek, but mostly casual. Wednesdays are $6 martini nights -- try that anywhere else in Manhattan -- and the menu has plenty of grilled items and maybe even some pizza, if you must. It's a cut above typical bar food (though chicken wings and such are available) and the atmosphere is conducive to sitting at the bar and having dinner. It's the real New York neighborhood place, in NY's most discerning neighborhood.

The only thing that article actually proves is that Houston loses the newspaper competition.

Wow, that's pretty cheesy.

Meteor was already one of the nicest places in Montrose, with its minimalist interior and video walls. IMO, what they needed was a better location and better parking.

They did.

Furthermore, if Pearland is going thuggish, it is absolutely is not too far gone. What ever happened to being behind your neighborhood? How do you think ghettos happen? If Pearland does become the hood, it will be because people moved in alright, but not the thugs. It'll be due to the ones who refused to be part of their neighborhood and abandoned it at the first sign of growing pains. The thugs will move in after the good people leave. Then, it'll happen all over again in the next fast-growing community. Pearland is not beyond hope...unless residents like pearlandgal2002 are the only ones there.

Friendswood maintains its top rating by drawing lines that keep the growth out of FISD. It's not a similar condition to what's going on in SCR. The only high school in FISD is Friendswood. There are kids who live less than a couple of miles from Friendswood High who are zoned to Clear Creek, though. Believe me, it isn't the white kids in $350,000 homes ending up on the CCISD side of that line. Friendswood is the closest thing to a private school you can get in a public one. And it isn't by accident.

Funny how people are always trying to draw comparisons between Houston and New York or Los Angeles, when our closest comparison, to me, would be to Chicago. Houston and Chicago both sprawl, crossing political boundaries without any geography to stop them on most sides of the monster. Chicago's mass transit has helped them deal with this much more effectively. Both cities have massive downtown cores that are more business friendly than residential friendly -- though Chicago clearly has an advantage in this regard. Both cities are known as business and industrial giants and have built their economies accordingly -- Houston has been a bit more successful in this case, while Chicago courts visitors and hospitality slightly better. Both cities are far removed form the influences of the East or West coasts. Both seem, at once, secure and insecure in this fact. Both are heavily reliant on transportation systems for their lifeblood -- Chicago by air and rail (and to a lesser degree, shipping) and Houston by shipping and rail (and to a lesser degree, air) Both are challenged by real and perceived climate issues strong enough to keep relocations in check. Both have major cities nearby that have virtually emptied out skilled labor and executive workforces into their economies -- Chicago has Detroit. Houston has New Orleans. Both draw the best and brightest from neighboring states, creating a cosmopolitan island in an otherwise rural region -- Chicago pulls from Wisconsin and Indiana. Houston pulls from Louisiana. In all, I'd suggest we not look to LA and NY for our model of the future of Houston, but more toward Chicago, as our physical and mental kinship seems much more pronounced with that city. That's not a bad thing, either.

Okay -- Redscare can correct me if I'm wrong on any of this -- until fairly recently in Texas, real estate agents in Texas represented only the seller, in terms of fiduciary responsibility. They were marketing managers for hire, essentially. Then, the concept of buyer's representation was introduced. This presented a small problem in that the way things work in real estate is that a broker may have hundreds of agents in several offices across the city and state working for him. Thus, two agents from completely different offices on opposite sides of town can be working a transaction for the same broker. That broker can't take on fiduciary responsibilities for both the seller and the buyer without a signed agreement from both parties that allows him to assign an intermediary -- which is always from his own office. The Broker can therefor collect both sides of the commission and distribute it to his salespeople as he sees fit. Because this presents a potential conflict of interest, it is fairly closely regulated. That's why, I'm sure, if you look through your mountain of paperwork, there is some form where you signed off as willing to accept intermediary designation. The title company would not have disbursed both funds to the same brokerage without it. That's the form that will probably help your sleaze skate on this.

Sheesh, we're replying to one another faster than we can read the replies. Sorry about that. I will absolutely defer to the attorney on legal matters. I was merely trying to shed a little more light on the shady nature of this particular transaction. Bottom line -- if canadian had a good Realtor or lawyer in his court, he would have avoided all this.

I understand and accept that. The point about them being "unenforceable" if not executed by a trained person seems pertinent to this discussion, though, doesn't it?

I certainly can't cite the law, but I do know that there is a law that states that only a licensed Realtor may draw up a TREC contract. As I understand it, even an attorney cannot use the TREC form or participate in commissions, as they are defined in that form. During my brief stint as a Realtor, I didn't even have my own access to the forms until my representation was conferred through my broker. It's to keep individuals like the builder from attempting to draw up legal documents without any supervision. In a Realtor's instance, TREC and his broker are the supervising authorities to ensure the contract is handled appropriately. A Realtor and his broker risk losing their license if it isn't. Okay -- it looks like things have changed a bit.Though, I'd still argue an "unenforceable" contract is a good as an illegal one. Right?

Bingo. There's the problem. Only a licensed Realtor may draw up a TREC contract. If the builder did it and he isn't a Realtor, it's not a legal contract. As far as the intermediary designation -- that is exactly the kind of change that happens in a title company, when it comes to light thaty the buyer's and seller's agents are represented by the same broker agent. The Realtor was trying to pull a fast one by "updating" the contract with new information, once he "discovered" you had not filled in the buyer's agent information. My guess is that the builder did not enter this contract into title, but rather sent it to the Realtor to do it for him. The opportunistic Realtor then grabbed an extra 3% when he saw the blank left for the buyer's agent. In any case, there really are no damages to the buyer. It's unscrupulous, but skirts regulations, as far as the intermediary designation is concerned. The contract being drawn up by the builder is another issue. By the way -- even though you may not have initialed the buyer's agent change on the contract, I am certain that you signed an intermediary designation form, or else the contract could not have closed. In that, you agreed to allow the broker to designate your agent.

Hold on -- I just thought of something. Merely putting the contract in title is not executing it. In fact, now that I think of it, it isn't at all unusual to change a contract at a title company. All that's happening there is the investigation of the title to the property and everything necessary for the sale of it, like the taxes, liens, property lines, etc. It's at the closing that the it all becomes final, right? Until that time, the contract is a work in progress and can be ammended as necessary. Now, that doesn't make CHANGING anything on the contract right, without a signed amendment. But, adding information in spaces left blank is almost expected in many of these things -- particularl when the Realtor who drew up the contract is lax in his details and hurriedly puts the contract together. In any case -- once again, if the buyer's agent had been earning his commission, he would have assisted his customer in filling out this contract. I say it's his own fault his name isn't on the form. It doesn't make it right what was done to that contract, but they are written very loosely because they are mostly not written up by lawyers. Therefor, I think there's a general acceptance of these kinds of incidents in this business. Still, it doesn't make it right...