Ross

Where is Green going to get the money to do this unnecessary study? It's not like the City is flush with cash.

On the mobile site, the ad's are huge, and loading is slow, regardless of whether I am on wifi or cellular

It's there because it can't be removed without a complete study of the potential impacts on downstream flooding. That's the same reason it took years to remove the unused bridge over White Oak Bayou East of TC Jester. The study for that one was done as part of the bike trail project, I believe.

Is that a rhetorical question? Or are you unfamiliar with the relationship between those 2?

if you live in the City of Houston, call the City. If you live in the County, and have an MUD, talk to them.

How about not wasting billions of dollars, and keep what we have? I do not see billions in value for any if these suggestions.

It doesn't. A conviction on his State charges would have more of an impact than the SEC complaint.

Glenbrook is a city course, not a membership course.

Be a little hard for the City to develop that as a grid, given the property was privately owned for the most part. Unless you think it's OK for the City to force a developer to put in a grid, rather than what the developer thinks will actually sell.

The Pierce demolished some mundane stuff. Before that stuff was built, that area had some very large houses. See this page, about halfway down

I've been using Witte to visit friends that live further North since 1986. That station was abandoned then, as far as I could tell. It had a giant pile of boxes full of what looked like business records. It is currently owned by Latino Americane de Cambios, who bought it from Check Mart in 1986. Check Mart bought it from Guardian Investor Services in 1982. Guardian bought it from Petroleum Express in 1980. They bought From Delta Realty in 1974. I can't find anything further back.

The date on the picture predates the start of construction by a couple of years, so it was probably conceptual.

If you are capped, and your market value is significantly higher than your appraised value, there's not a lot you can do. We have another 4 years of 10% increases before our appraised value catches up to market.

http://www.stormtech.com has more information

That's a lot of gravel. Won't be much speeding in that lot until it gets compacted. Tough to walk on as well when it's piled that thick.

The one on Shepherd is at 5210 North Shepherd and is owned by the Fingers. It looks like it used to be a Pilgrim.

There's another one on North Shepherd towards I45. It looks closed. I ll try to remember to get an address the next time I drive by.

Using gravel means the ground is not impervious and runoff is reduced when it rains. There's nothing wrong with gravel parking lots.

Boil House was doing a land office business this evening.

Geez, Chron, it's Hogg Middle School, not elementary. Does no one do any fact checking?

We live inside the Loop, and have a full garage, and it's larger than normal. Part of the problem is a small house built 64 years ago with minimal closet space and a small attic. That means all of the seasonal stuff is in the garage. Then there's the camping, hunting and fishing stuff. There's the implements for the various sports we play. Add in the pool table, various saws and other power tools, some inherited stuff we don't feel like tossing, and a few other bits and pieces, and you have a full garage. I actually wonder what people who have nothing in the garage but a car and a bike do with their spare time.

Sell, move to Timbergrove...

The PUF gets royalties as a percentage of revenue. Profit or loss doesn't matter. The effect of lower prices is a reduction in revenue. The only way revenue goes to zero is if the wells no longer produce.

</sarcasm on>Essentially, the proponents of the Historic District guidelines think you should leave The Heights and move to a suburb, where your family size would be more appropriate. This will prevent the destruction and ruination of yet another museum quality building in the Historic District, since it is far more important to preserve the looks and architecture of the area than it is for people to actually be able to live there in an attractive house with all the additions well integrated and built at a reasonable cost. </sarcasm off> The guidelines are here https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/index.htmland overall, your chances of getting to modify the front are slim. Be prepared to spend a lot more money than expected, and for the overall process to take far longer than expected or desired. The HAHC meets once a month to consider applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness, deadlines for applying for approval are found at http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/commiss_hahc.html but I don't know if those deadlines include the time for Planning staff to consider your application. Here's the guidelines for second story additions from https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/HistoricPreservationManual/shallapprove.html : Second story additions (often called Camelbacks) must meet all of the following standards: Second story additions (often called Camelbacks) must meet all of the following standards: Is constructed on top of a one-story structure; and Does not extend outside the footprint of the existing structure; and Is set back from the front wall of the existing structure at least half the distance between the front wall of the existing structure and the farthest point of the rear of the existing structure (for example, if the existing structure measures 80 feet between those points, the addition must be set back at least 40 feet); and Has a plate height (distance from the subfloor of the building to the top of the framed wall) that does not exceed the plate height of the story beneath the proposed addition; and Has a roof pitch that is less than or equal to the existing structure; and Will not affect the structural integrity of the existing structure, as confirmed in writing by a structural engineer licensed by the state of Texas; and Is not constructed on a building that has had an addition approved under this chapter.

It's not as simple as just hooking up your iPod to the antenna and broadcasting. You have to pay royalties, and have permission to play the songs. Not all copyright owners want their songs played over the air, and deny you that ability. Here's one site that has some information on the topic http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creating/musicrights.htmlthat came up with this search https://www.google.com/search?q=laws+on+broadcasting+music&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8