uncertaintraveler

Is W's presidential library going to be in Dallas? I wasn't aware that the decision of where it was going to be built had been made yet....

If so, his "I'm a West Texan" line is clearly an exaggeration. If he was truly a West-Texan, wouldn't he have wanted his library in Lubbock? And besides, isn't the drinking better in Lubbock than Dallas?

Isn't your employer going to pay for (and provide) parking? If so (and if you are driving from home to work), I sure wouldn't want to live in the Woodlands, Sugarland, or anywhere else that far outside of the loop. The commute would be a nightmare. If I was working downtown (which I do), I wouldn't even think about living outside of the loop at all (which I don't).

I'm sure others will have much more useful information on where to live than I....but I would recommend that you least look into the Rice Military, Heights, Bellaire, West U. and the River Oaks areas.

Still got your white Jackson Hill robe? Great place except for that huge parking garage. It was about .5 mile from the very top of the garage (guest parking) to the front gate. I miss being so close to the park also. I think traffic is going to get a bit hairy in that area when the condos are done.

Hummm..I never got a robe. I did get a CD holder though....

You are right, the parking garage is horrible---the corners (or 180 degree turns) are all blind (especially if there is a car parked in the end space) and people speed around them like NASCAR drivers. It is an accident waiting to happen....

I lived at the Jackson Hill apartments for about a year and myself, any of the tenants or the building manager never had any problems of disputes with this guy. Don't know what the condo developer's problem is.

Small world...I lived there too! I will never had a real problem with the guy, but he did call the police on me when I was unloading my moving van. He claimed that my moving van, because it was parked in the wrong direction on a one-way street, was in some sort of violation of the Texas or Federal Constitution. (Apparently, he didn't believe the city of Houston had an applicable ordinance ) The cop came out, looked at the moving van, looked over at the property owner and said, incrediously, "you called us out for this?!?" The officer got back in her car and drove off. Aside from that little run-in, he was a generally pleasant fellow...

I considered buying a place at the Jackson Hill Condos before ground was broken. I thought the units were decent (albeit a bit overpriced), but the developer struck me as the kind of guy who couldn't accept the idea that maybe his plans were the greatest thing ever, and I could envision running into some great difficulties with the guy down the road if the finished condos didn't turn out as proposed. Kinda like the person who if you don't play ball with him, he breaks your legs so you won't play ball with anyone else either. Maybe some of his personality is coming out? In any event, one has to believe that the costs of getting rid of the across-the-street property owner are going to be passed along to the future condo-owners, either in higher asking prices for the units or perhaps higher association dues.

I don't know if that is what the developer wants to do---the property in question isn't very large and certainly couldn't hold more than 2 or 3 townhomes at the most. It certainly isn't large enough to allow for another multi-unit condo development like the one going up now.

Regardless, it all seems like a shady practice to me. The house (and all of its trash and assorted yard-sale items) was there long before Jackson Place Condos came to town, and I have to wonder why the developer wants to take the guy to court. If he thinks getting rid of the guy will make his units sell (and I'm just guessing on that point--maybe they are all sold out?), then good luck to him....but it sure strikes me as poor way to do business.

Just wanted to bump this thread back up on the list. Anyone heard of any new developments on this project? I know that the concrete pillars are being set--it looks like the first floor of the garage will be completed in a few weeks.

Also, it appears that the developer is having a feud with the owner/tenant of the property across the street from the condos. Admittedly, the house across the street is a bit of a trash heap, but the developer is apparently trying to get the guy's place condemned (I guess in an effort to remove "blight"---perhaps the condos aren't selling very well???), and the homeowner/tenant is fighting back by posting signs asking people to call the FBI (as if they have any jurisdiction over property-right disputes) and claiming that 505 Jackson Hill used to be (or still is) listed as an EPA toxic waste dump. I know that before ground was broken on the condos someone had spray-painted such a claim on the "Soon-to-be-the-home of" sign, but nothing ever really came of that claim. Maybe the homeowner/tenant is hoping the EPA claim has some legs...

Okay, maybe racist isn't the word I'm going for here. I'm not sure what the term might be...but I want to be able to buy food that is raised/grown right here in my own darned country. Is that too much to ask?

As has been mentioned previously, if you want to buy food that is raised/grown in this country, you should shop at a farmer's market. Or raise your own food....

I've ranted about this before, I am sure.

Actually, I can't say that I've noticed. Its not like you rant about many things...

My problem now seems to be that everywhere I shop--be it Randall's, Kroger, HEB, or WalMart (and I frequent all of them) all I can find is produce from other countries. Lettuce from Mexico. Asparagus from Peru. Apples from California. Oh wait....well, close enough

I fail to see how this is a problem. Do you only want to eat things from the U.S.? If so, then (as has been mentioned before), shop elsewhere. Oh, and while you are it, don't buy anything that isn't native to our soil---I'd hate for you to buy "exotic" or "foreign" foods, like chinese gooseberries (a/k/a kiwi fruit), rambutans, patagonian toothfish (a/k/a chilean sea bass), and so on.

I was at Randall's today, the Flagship Randall's on Memorial, when I found that they didn't have ONE piece of fish that wasn't from a foreign country. Not just any foreign country, either--CHINA. That's right, folks, your fish is from China, at least it is if you buy it from Randall's. It's on a teeeeeeensy weensy little sign that the fish sit on. The shrimp were all from Indonesia. HELLO--we live right on the gulf, with the best shrimp in the world, no doubt--and our local grocer (well, as local as Safeway can be) gets their shrimp from INDONESIA. Wow. Was it any cheaper? Nope. Not at all. At HEB, I found out that the whitefish I bought was called Basa and was farm-raised in Vietnam. OH GOODY. Glad we're helping everyone else out and not our own farmers, you know like maybe in LOUISIANA or MISSISSIPPI? *sigh*

Gee...thanks for telling me! I'll be sure never to shop there again, lest I accidently bump into you there while I happily purchase my foreign-grown foodstuffs. Seriously, how is any of this even an issue? You can drop all the piety about how we should buy from our own farmers---no one is "forcing" them to stay in the farming business and, quite honestly, I'm getting tired of subsidizing their career choice. I suppose it has never occurred to you that perhaps the fish from Vietnam, China, Indonesia, etc, is better (as in, tastier, more plentiful, easier to obtain, cheaper, or whatever) than that harvested here? And has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the citizens of Australia, New Zealand, Spain, etc, buy their produce from the U.S. instead of getting it locally? Using your logic, are you suggesting that they should boycott our farmers???

Be aware, friends...be very aware... and ask where it's from and WHY DO THEY BUY IT? I get a bunch of shrugged shoulders from employees...nobody seems to care. I get a little nervous when I can't get a local snapper, ya know what I mean?

Uh...no, I don't know what you mean. And I still can't figure out why any of this is an issue. Pardon me for saying this, but you seem to get awfully worked-up about some of the most trivial of things....

If where your produce comes from matters so much to you, why don't you start your own grocery store? Name it Parrothead's Parishables, or whatever. That way, you can sell all the home-grown food you can find to people just like you, who (apparently) will happily pay a (probable) premium for items that aren't noticably different that what the competition offers.

An excellent trans-Texas rail system will also never happen because Southwest Airlines has, and will probably continue to, lobby against its creation. A superfast, low-hassle way to get from Houston to Dallas (by rail) pretty much kills one of Southwest's major profit generators...so we all know SW won't let that happen without a fight.

I used two laborers from Shephard and 11th to help unload a moving truck during a very hot summer day. The agreed rate was $10 an hour for each worker.

When all was said and done, I paid them their hourly wage, and then gave them a $10 bonus (representing an extra hour of work), and free bottles of Gatorade. They seemed to be exceptionally appreciative of the small gesture.

They're going insane with these highrise condos. They'll flood the market with them, and in a few years, when occupancy is like, 50%, they'll lower the prices. I plan on taking full advantage.

I heard the one at Sage and 59, that was built 6 or 7 years ago, charges a $1200 monthly maintainence fee. That's another house payment.. and their occupancy is at around 60% right now (I wonder why?).

A flooded high-rise condo market may result in lower asking prices for such condos, but I don't think a flooded market translates into lower monthly maintainence fees. The latter is usually tied to square footage amounts, not to sales prices. So even if you get a high-rise condo on the cheap, the maintainence fee will likely still be commensurate with the view.

He earned his money, why can't he do what he wants to do with it. Is he gambling illegally in his hotel room in Florida, or in his hotel room in Vegas ?

I could care less what he does with his money. However, I do think people have a right to investigate how so-called "moral teachers" spend their money....and considering that the guy lectures (on the speaking circuit and in his tomes on morality and virtues) on how gambling is a vice, immoral, and possibly sinful, I don't think it is unreasonable to point out that the guy is a complete hypocrite.

Did he lose any sponsors?

If necessary, I'm sure Bill would have no trouble landing any of the casinos or other gambling establishments around the country as sponsors, given his propensity to engage in such activities.

The question I have is why do people even bother listening to the guy? Don't people have better things to do than listen for platitudes on life from someone who writes books on morality while compulsively gambling in his hotel suite?

I looked at Commerce Towers a few months ago...They appeared to be way over-priced and a really poor value. To me, they feel like a cheap hotel that tries to be upscale.

Those are great pictures, but they make OKC look a whole lot nicer than it really appears in person.

Okay, excuse my ignorance here, but if you live in an area that is NOT shaded on the Emergency Management maps as being an evacuation zone, doesn't that mean that you do not need to evacuate?

Which means, in turn, that basically all of inner-loop Houston and the western side of Houston should just stay-put and ride the storm out? If so, then I don't understand why so many people are running around so scared.

Also....does anyone know where I can look online at a map showing the boundaries of 100-year floodplains?

I don't think Northwestern has "traditionally" been able to compete with other schools in its conference. They have had a few good years and lots of poor ones. And didn't BC almost cut its football program???

However, I do agree that college football needs to go to a playoff system. I always laugh when ABC commentators lament the dominance the BCS system has on college football and suggest a playoff system would be better---of course, never mentioning that ABC is one of, if not the, biggest reasons the BCS exists!

There was in article in the paper this weekend (still tryin to find it) about Rice football.  Rice is playing schools like UCLA and Texas because they get $500,000 to lose.  And that $500,000 may soon be going up to $800,000.  Next year Rice will even play Florida State.  These games are being played in an effort to have the football program pay for itself, and make some money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This sort of deal has been going around for years. Why else do you think schools like Louisiana-Lafayette and the like play Texas? They do it (i) for the money, (ii) because Texas et al type schools need other "gimme" schools they can practice on early in the season, and (iii) if the "weak" schools can pull off an upset, or close to it, doing so instantly increases their profile for the year. Cases in point: University of Central Florida and Fresno State. They became "semi-famous" football schools by taking on the big guys and giving them a run for their money, no pun intended.

Also, at virtually every big school that has a football program, football is what keeps the school's entire athletic program profitable. For athletic programs to be successful financially, the key is to always have a profitable football program.

I used to like George...especially during my college years. But then I started noticing a trend in his articles--he would use verbosity and irrelevant stories as a means to confuse the issues and advance the side of the conservative movement. To his credit, however, he always appeared to be consistent in his beliefs (once you could wade through his writings to figure out what exactly they were, that is).

Or, he was until things started going badly in Iraq. When it became clear to all but the most isolated and/or deaf that the general public was growing restless and disenchanted with the war, George quickly did a 180, and started critizing Bush and questioning his conservative advisors......never mentioning, of course, that he himself was always one of the biggest champions of military intervention in the region.

Once he started going wobbly (in the words of Thatcher), and changed his views (at least on paper) to fit his audience, I've lost all respect for the guy, because it became clear that he isn't a consistent conservative thinker. Instead, he is merely a consistent fraudulent thinker.

I'd go back and try again, and I don't see how trying has anything to do with being insensitive to Louisiana students.

Regardless of where you are from, if a university has an empty desk, they'll take your money and let you sit in it. And who is to say that any of the people you saw are interested in taking the same classes you want to take?

Say, where do the Bushies live in Houston? As in, inside the loop or outside?

I said it once, and I'll say it again: Those who live by depending on the government FIRST, and themselves SECOND, will be the last to be helped in a distaster - NO MATTER WHAT COLOR THEY ARE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hummm...isn't this exactly what Bill O'Reilly said in his "talking points" segment deal two nights ago?

So did he get this idiotic one-liner from you, or did you copy it from him?

A previous post said it takes several days to activate the Guard.  Why?  One must ask, don't we know that from June 1 through November 30, EVERY year, there is a hurricane season?  Don't we know that, wherever it hits, there are humanitarian needs?  Don't we know that desparate people, as well as common thugs, resort to looting after disasters?  Don't we know that after a storm, people need food, water and shelter?  All of these contingencies could have been planned for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RedScare, I usually agree with just about everything you post, but this comment is, respectfully, absolutely absurd. Are you suggesting that we have all (or even a portion of) the National Guard on complete standby for 5 months every year, just in case a hurricane hits somewhere?

If so, exactly how exactly do you propose we do so? Tell Guard members that they can't take any vacations during this time? Tell them that they can't take any job assignments that involve them being away from their "home" for more than, say, 12 hours, lest a hurricane develop and hit somewhere? The logistics and sacrifices needed to do what (I think..) you are proposing would be staggering and totally unworkable....

And, if we are going to put them on standby for hurricanes, why not do the same for the snow season in the north? After all, some snowstorms can be quite disasterous. Heck, while we are it, why don't we just creat a whole new military unit that does nothing but wait around for disasters to hit? I'm sure doing so wouldn't cost us that much...

Oh...and not to be pendantic or anything, but I'm pretty sure the radio show you are referring to is the Neal Bortz show, not the Neal Bork show. Assuming, that is, you are listening to the guy who is always "for" something until everyone else is for it as well, and then he suddenly changes his mind to be "against" it.

As an aside, I think Rice and other "elite" schools would be better off if they left their current NCAA conferences and formed their own. Schools like Baylor, Vanderbilt, et al, just can't compete with the likes of OU, Texas, Tennessee, Auburn, etc.

If the "academically-gifted athletic schools" would create their own conference (consisting of, say, SMU, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, et al), the games would probably be pretty competitive.

Then again, now that I think about it, I'm not sure there are even 8 qualified Division I schools out there that could justify creating a new conference! I mean, what other "smart" D-I schools located in the SE quadrant of the US have a football team?

Has Rice University ever played in the Cotton Bowl or in any other bowl game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good grief....read the thread before you post!

Post #5 answers your question.

is that truly wrong?

Most bars in town charge higher price for drinks or require cover to keep unwanted patrons away (particularly homeless).  Should they be penalized?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think there is anything wrong with having high prices to keep out an entire class, so long as the high prices are consistently applied to everyone equally. My point was that if you are going to charge one person X, but a (presumably) lesser amount to Y, largely because the latter isn't "riff-raff," doing so is highly suspect and probably illegal. That's what is discriminatory and incredibly stupid...