uncertaintraveler

They were talking about Houston hotels price gouging. They interviewed a motel clerk who said they weren't CHARGING 199.99 but were QUOTING 199.99. The implication was that they were tyring to cut out the "riff raff" (can't remember if the clerk used that word or the reporter, but one of them said that).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I saw the report that I think you are referring to on Channel 11. I think the clerk used that phrase, and the first thing I thought was "how stupid can people get?" The second thing I thought was "how exactly does one determine what riff-raff is"?

Regardless, if the clerk actually said what the report appears for her to say, I think someone would have a great lawsuit. After all, variable prices based largely on whether one is "riff-raff" (and that's probably code for "of the wrong ethnic background") is discriminatory and I would imagine illegal under the Civil Rights Act. Not to mention the illegality of price gouging...

That all being said, if any proprietor is found guilty of price gouging, does anyone know what exactly the penalty is? I doubt the gougee receives anything...probably just the city, but does the gouger get their business license revoked? Anyone know?

I think 15 is a bit young, but I am a big fan of overseas trips and experiences as they can do wonders for changing one's world view.

A more popular way to travel is to take what the Brits (and others) call a gap year....sometimes a year off between high school and college, but more often a year off between college and the first year of work. Most of these gap years are done by people 18 to 22....and they are about as safe as anything else in this world. Traveling during this time period might be a greater benefit than traveling when you are 15....if only because you probably will be open to more experiences, ideally be more mature, and have a greater appreciation of what you are doing/seeing/experiencing. At least in theory, anyway.

You might want to also post a similar query on the message boards of Lonely Planet...perhaps the gap year branch. You might get some good responses there.

uncertaintraveler, your last two posts were full of great ideas that could actually work. The country could use more like you in positions of power. Ever thought of a career in politics or at least local radio? You could be the answer to our buddy Dan Patrick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why thank you. I have thought about a career in politics, but my speaking ability isn't the best and some might say that I have the social skills of a gnat. I'm certainly no Bill Clinton or Karl Rove. If anyone knows of any good political-job openings though, I'd love to hear about them.

1800 americans.  Why is there outrage over this number?

It's definitely a good number compared the success of events going on in Iraq. 

Considering we lost well over 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam, more in WWII, and the most in our own Civil War, I don't think we can complain about the Iraq War death toll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, there was an article written several months ago in Slate (I believe...but it could have been the New York Times..if I had the time I'd find it and post the link) that analyzed the death rates in U.S. wars and noted that given the advancements of medicine and technology over the years, the death rate in Iraq is on-par with the death rate in Vietnam.

So, yeah, I think we can complain about the Iraq War death toll.

And we could do so regardless of how it compared to other wars. To me, any death in a voluntary war is one death too many.

Excuse me for "intruding" upon this interesting and somewhat long-winded discussion, but I've just got to make the following points in response to SpringTX's comments:

If a terrorist nation or a nation harboring terrorists tries to blow up Manhattan and kills 10,000 in the process, they better be darned well prepared to have all 20 million people in that country offed.  We may go easy on them.  Or we might just decide to nuke that whole country in response.  But that's our choice.  That's how the game works.  War isn't fair.  War doesn't have ethics.  It's kill or be killed. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well....I hate to bring this to your attention, but what nation was it that harbored the terrorists that tried to blow up Manhattan a few years ago? Umm..it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't Afghanistan, and I don't believe it was even an Arab nation. Instead, it was the U.S. I mention this only because your argument is one of the most overused lines there is about responding to terrorism, and it reveals a serious lack of consideration as to the nature and extent of the problem(s) facing a realistic response to terrorist activities. Simply blowing away all nations that harbor individuals whose interest are adverse to that of our own is hardly a reasonable, or even possible, response.

You'll have to forgive my memory, because I can't remember all the details clearly right now, but the bottom line is that there seemed to be plenty of doubt, speculation, debate, and information pointing the possibility that Iraq was on its way to making weapons of mass destruction.  Nothing was known for sure.  But plenty of reasonable  had strong suspicions, based on information they had gathered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same could be said for at least 50 other nations in the world. What shall we do about them? Or do we just invade those nations that we believe we can over-throw easily?

But when I saw smoke rising from the Pentagon out the window of my office building on 9-11, it ceased to become an intellectual argument for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps this is one of the problems: we shouldn't be making decisions of this magnitude that aren't grounded in intellectual argument....

If this is the case (that Bush deceived the Congress and the American public), then the sucka deserves to be impeached.  I think Clinton should have been removed from office when he was impeached.  Lying and deceiving the American people is a pretty serious crime, in my personal opinion.  I don't think we should tolerate that from our leaders.  I I trust and support every one of our Presidents unconditionally and naively, whether Republican or Democrat...until one of them is caught red-handed...in which case I'm 100% behind booting them out of office swiftly and unceremoniously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow...I'm glad to know that you consider all lying to be the same and deserve the same draconian response. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a president lying about personal matters (i.e., who he has sexual relations with), but I have a serious problem with a president lying about issues that result in the virtually needless death of over 1800 Americans.

Even if he was stuck in Airforce one he could run the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, he could.

Sadly, he doesn't.

(I hope that is the smilie for "not sure if I should be relieved or scared").

your entire post was very interesting, and practical at that, but those conservatives you speak of will either ignore or it will go over some heads...

as for loans, that would be wonderful - i am taking out loans to fund graduate education in a field that does not pay "well" - i'll be comfortable, and that's all i am looking for - but i also know i will be paying back those loans forever...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. The student-loan idea is what they do in Australia. The government guarantees all student loans and then gets repaid out of your paycheck as an automatic deduction (just like FICA et al). The repayment percentage is progressive and capped at a certain amount (I think 30%, but that might be a little high).

To me, it seems like a win-win. Students can study and work in fields that may not pay well, but that they enjoy. Colleges don't have to worry about tuition funding and can pretty much scrap half their student-loan department (thereby freeing up overhead expenses, and ideally using the money saved on actual educating students), banks won't have to get involved in student-loan programs (yeah, I know they are profit-centers, but why should banks make money off something the government is providing essentially for free anyway?), the whole shady-side middleman loan broker business is wiped out, and the government has a vested interest in increasing employment/job opportunities for its citizens (because without having jobs available for its citizens, it won't get its money back on the student loans).

Also...did anyone see CNN Presents last night, about beating cancer? Apparently, despite the Orphan Drug Act, some company has a very good cure/treatment for a specialized form of cancer, but because it won't ever make enough money to pay back the research and development costs, the company is scrapping the drug and won't make it anymore. Apparently, the last remaining vials of the drug are stored at M.D. Anderson. It got me thinking: in cases like this, why doesn't the government step in, terminate the patent held by the company who is refusing to make more of the drug, and start manufacturing the drug on its own? After all, if the chemical formula has already been created, why can't the government just make it instead of the company? And, as an additional incentive for companies, anytime a company creates a viable drug but then ceases to keep manufacturing it because doing so is no longer profitable, the government (in addition to terminating the original patent), also terminates the patent as to one of the company's top 5 selling drugs. Thus...although the government could step-in and manufacture the drug, there is a great incentive to the company to make both highly profitable and not-so-profitable drugs. Just a thought.

Again with emotion and lack ideological solution.  Instead just attacking my statements, why don't you truly explain your side and view?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't have any emotion in my comments. And I wasn't so much as attacking your statements as I was trying to expose them as being a completely myopic viewpoint.

About the uninsured:  It is far better to be uninsured in this country than to be moderately insured.  Being unisured, you can walk into any emergency room or any charity hospital and get treatment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad you brought this up, because this is a fine example of what is wrong with your points in prior posts. You imply people should get their own health insurance, instead of obtaining goverment handouts. Yet now you state it is better to be uninsured (and thus, by extension, obtain government handouts) than it is for someone to purchase their own insurance. So which one is it?

Personally, I think it is shameful that this country doesn't have national healthcare for everyone (a program could easily be paid for by sales tax), and it is shameful that the federal government doesn't set caps on drug costs, instead of giving free-passes to drug companies so we can pay more than anyone else in the world for medicine. But conservatives are so blinded by their loyalty to the "free market" system that they fail to see that the market isn't really free and is instead propped up by their all their special-interest legislation that benefits everyone but those who eventually get sick (ie, every natural person).

Housing cost gone up?  What about HUD and local housing programs to put people into real houses with mortgages.  I've worked on over 1000 lots in sudvisions within the city of Houston for developers that will be offered as low income housing.  Not projects, but real houses with some yard and community playgrounds and parks.

This is common in many of Americas large cities where housing cost have escalated.  These HUD programs I would agree to be one of the best uses of government money for housing.  It involves the family and the community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great. That's a start. But there are still too many people in this nation who struggle to survive because they can't get paid a living wage through little fault of their own.

Why don't you stop reading talking points and start looking at the real problem.  Start looking at the real numbers and how the situation really is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never read "talking points" in my life, so I have no idea what you are talking about. But I look at the real numbers and the situation isn't good.

Unemployment is marginally increasing, real job growth is stagnant (and for several years, was negative!), the relationship between long and short term interest rates is becoming inverted, national debt is expanding...I could go on and on. Conservatives see nothing wrong with this---prefering to spend their way into (and allegedly out of, although its never actually been done before!) deficits.

You want my view? How about this for a start...we could make America the best place is the world again if we just did the following: increase taxes on everyone to pay down the incredible national debt; Institute a penny federal sales tax to pay for national health care; Legalize all drugs (and tax them too), because the war on drugs has been such a great success and a wonderful use of tax dollars; Re-regulate all utility companies to restore sane pricing levels and avoid market manipulation; Make education a real priority, by scrapping all state education standards and federalizing all schools, institute education standards, and pay every teacher a minimum of 250% of the average national pay in hopes of making teaching a career people would actually be interested in; Scrap the current student-loan system and make repayment based upon a percentage of your income, so that people can take jobs in fields that don't pay so well (but that they are passionate about) without worrying about how they will pay off their student loans; Mandate 6 week minimum paid vacations for all workers, so people can spend time with their families; Create a valid and useful homeland security program by searching cargo containers at ports instead of wasting time at airports by hounding passengers to remove their shoes; and, of course, get the heck out of Iraq now, because we can spend our money elsewhere and the whole place is going to descend into civil war once we leave anyway.

Those stories exists everyday.  Conservatives much much rather use the prove method of market economics to raise people out of poverty instead of just give them what they need.  The prevents the since of entitilement and encourages an atomsphere of earning what get.

Many social programs exists that use this approach and have seen much sucess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This statement is a bedrock of conservative thought. Sadly, it isn't a valid point. Not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and no one (NO ONE!) has ever gotten to where they are today simply on their own. Liberals historically prefer to help people with things, conservatives prefer to help people with ideas. It doesn't take a genius to realize that people prefer things over ideas.

In the US the poor and disaffected has grown since Johnson pushed through his liberal social programs creating a large welfare state.  Luckily there is a movement in the US to roll back many of these moneypit programs that produce no results except for more poor and more dependent people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really? We are lucky that there is such a movement???

I guess we should be happy and overjoyed then to hear that the numbers of uninsured are increasing every year, that quality housing is quickly becoming unaffordable for many, and that more schoolchildren every year need assistance paying for their lunches? And that all of this will continue to increase? And, similiarly, we should be happy to know that what little money our government actually spends on welfare programs is instead being "diverted" in the form of tax breaks for some of the most profitable companies on earth?

Don't fool yourself. Whatever "movement" you are referring to only wants to cut programs for the "undesireables." Those in the "movement" aren't about to give up the handouts that benefit them, like social security that isn't means-tested, tax breaks, and so on.

The truth is America is leaning towards more conservative ideas mainly is because they have been presented them.  I still try to find what liberals stand for.  It's hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And don't kid yourself....The reason America is leaning towards more conservative ideas is for one very simple reason: its easier not to care. Heck, that's basically the "conservative" theme: Vote Republican---its easier not to care.

Woo hoo!  It's fixed.  Look toward the top of the page on the right and you'll see the options Outline, Standard, and Linear+.  Pick the one that you like best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great! Thank you.

It used to be that when you clicked on a topic, you'd see all the posts at once by scrolling down. Now you have to click on each post within a thread -- a lot more trouble to read an entire thread. Just wondering why that changed?

I just found this forum recently but love it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree---the new format is a lot more difficult to follow now. Is there some way to go back to the way it used to be: click on a topic and you can read all of the posts by scrolling down? The new format takes too much time, is too cumbersome for me to follow completely, and (in my view) is hardly user-friendly.

How can they offer gas cooktops in the kitchen?

Every condo I've looked at has electric cooktops and when I ask way, I'm always told that gas cooktops aren't allowed in multistory developments under the code requirements.

Okay holy-roller, tell your kids to stop telling my kids they're going to hell, its getting old already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know for whom the not-so Casual Observer's comment was intended, but I'd like to go on record as saying that I do not have any kids.

Newsflash - neither of you can prove the truth behind one scripture in the bible. It's a 100% faith driven document.

Believe it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps this is a good time to remember that using "absolutes" is often shortsighted and results in incorrect statements, particularly when it comes to matters of religion.

For example, as to certain biblical scriptures, it is very easy to prove the truth behind them.

Was there a man named Peter? Yes, and that can be proved factually.

Did he go on several missionary journeys? Yes, and that can be proved factually.

Was he shipwrecked on Patmos? Yes, and that can be proved factually.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. On issues that require precise commentary, using "absolutes" just muddies the waters.

Until the day before the parade, I didn't even know there was going to be one. The only reference I saw of a festival of sorts was a short blip on the tv screen inside the elevator on the way to my office---and all it said was that there was some singer performing at the corner of Yoakum and Westheimer (or was it Montrose?) and mentioned a $10 entrance fee.

I would have liked to have seen the parade, but I certainly didn't see anything anywhere suggesting that such a parade was planned. As a new resident to Houston, I figured people here didn't put on the same show that went on in Atlanta....my last hometown.

Oh well...I'll have to calendar in the date for next year.

However, imho, the tunnel system has more to do with the lack of downtown street life than zoning.  Retailers flock to the tunnels (and with our crime and weather, who blames them?), which leaves the street level spaces empty.  Which, in turn, provides places for homeless to congregate, which makes the streets feel unsafe, which drives the retailers into the tunnels.  Endless cycle if you get my drift.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I realize this isn't a great analogy, and it isn't even very much on point, but Singapore has a lot of tunnels in their downtown area (mostly connected with their metro system), and I seem to recall them having about the same amount of commercial activity in them as Houston's tunnels do. At the same time, though, Singapore is bustling with street level activity too. Maybe if Houston could round up the homeless the way Singapore does, our downtown would be a truly bustling place?

KJB434:

So which one is it?

First you say "The housing bubble (if it exists) shows no sign of bursting."

Then you write:

Predicting these things are not always easy.  You see them building, but you don't know when they'll pop if they do.  Remembe the stock market in the 90s.  Leading up to the burst, know one new it would happen.  The people who diversified were ok, the tech heavy people were hit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like you are trying to be on both sides of the, ahem, curve here...

And, if I may ask, exactly how does one diversify in regard to their personal home? Have two homes in two different locales?

Regardless, even if Houston's market isn't as hot or overvalued as that in other cities, when the housing market begins to falter (here and/or elsewhere), our market will feel the effect from other markets' collapse, and ultimately, prices overall in all markets will begin to fall. After all, no market exists in geographic isolation...

uncertain traveler, usually the conservative justices uphold the gov't right to search and sieze with little justification.  How does this ruling fall along established lines?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have always interpreted the conservative justices as being, if you will, "strict constructionists" when it comes to property rights, but "living documentarians" when it comes to personal rights. As in, they interpret searches and seizures of the person under different standards than seizures of private property. Under the former, they say that the government doesn't have to meet much of a standard (and some would say, no standard) and individuals have limited rights. Under the latter, the would have a standard that is much higher and onerous on the government and individual property owners have great protection from the arm of the government. Its all a sliding scale...or slope....

Perhaps not surprisingly, the decision broke along the established fault lines: the 3 conservatives and the swinger vs. the 5 "search, seizure and taking is a good thing" block.

I liked O'Connor's dissent.....and, like her, I believe that the effect of the ruling won't be applied equally (say, similar houses, but in different neighborhoods, both fall under a city's definition of "blight," clearly the house in the less-wealthy part of town will be razed). I'm sure plenty of future law review articles will say this, but the decision is a travesty for private-property-rights advocates.

Check similar projects in other large cities around the country, these are cheap. This is prime land that "they ain't makin no more" so appreciation shouldn't be a big deal over time unless the economy cycles down quite a bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if this project is cheap relative to other projects around the country (a premise I don't totally agree with), that hardly means this project is a good value or investment. The market for high end condos is a limited one in all but a very few U.S. markets---Miami, NYC, Vegas, possibly Atlanta, and so on. Clearly, Houston isn't like any of these cities.

In any event, I'm waiting for the housing bubble to burst....maybe once that happens prices will return to reasonable levels.

Two points:

First, I guess it is safe to assume that 2727 Kirby is the same as the building discussed on another thread titled "new condo on Kirby?" or something along those lines?

Second, I would imagine that $400 a square foot condos constitute a pretty slim market. How can anyone buy such a place with a realistic view of earning substantial appreciation upon resale? Or...more importantly...how can people buy these places thinking there will even be a market for them upon resale???

The Cheapest Unit on HAR right now

Most Expensive one

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These prices are laughable and, to me, represent very poor values....but, then again, I have been continually shocked at the price of real estate these days.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr Miller as he spoke his concience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you truly believe that Zell Miller speaks his conscience, then I'm afraid you are terribly naive. As someone who grew up in GA during the gubinatorial tenure of Zell, please believe me when I say that his nickname of Zig-Zag Zell was well-deserved. The guy only speaks about what will make him popular with "the masses" (as he sees them), or about what he sees as an issue he can exploit in his favor. If that is what speaking one's conscience means to you, then, well, you have a different definition of the term than I do.

To me, however, Zell's "conscience" twists, turns and wavers more than a flag in a hurricane.

Perhaps this isn't totally on-topic, but I find that the drivers on I-45 going South are by far the worst. Drivers on other freeways are generally decent, but on I-45, they are just maniacs---especially on the section from 610 to the Airline exit.

Not to be cynical, but when it is 105 degrees outside, and the wind is blowing huge dust storms through downtown, who is going to want to walk, instead of drive, through downtown?

That being said, Midland can use all the greenery it can plant...