Eastwood79

yep, RR is the man. I guess he is just picking and choosing which owner occupied houses he wants to do.

flipper

We had just moved in, but our house still looked like a construction zone - maybe that helped.

Is this about RR? I used him for our glass enclosure and he did a great job. Didn't take long at all - came out once to measure and then came back for an hour or so to install. Many thanks to flipper for the recommendation!

Disingenuous melodramatic rhetoric. Just as I suspected. You didn't even admit to being an asshole straight-up...you set a precondition.

Looks like I'm for the facility.

Oh I'll admit I'm an asshole. But if you put out melodramatic rhetoric, you're gonna get the same back.

Please refer to post #17 for my thoughts on this facility being built one mile from the Heights borders. Though I must admit that I am a minority view in my particular nabe. And, I must say, with more than just a little neighborhood pride, that my NIMBYs would crush your NIMBYs. Heights NIMBYs are pretty much the Boston Celtics of the NIMBY arena. Eastwood NIMBYs are closer to the Atlanta Hawks.

Ha ha!

Bold statement, but I think that the Ashby highrise developers might disagree. West U vs Heights would be a good game though.

So if Eastwood79 and his/her compatriots will admit that they're greedy, selfish, profiteers, out to make a buck at the expense of this organization and the deserving veterans that it would serve, I might just do the same, join forces, and endure Crunch's wrath tomorrow night (sorry).

Lol - I love you niche.

If this were a veterans-only shelter I would support it because my respect for those who served outweighs my concerns about this type of facility. My thinking sort of goes: you served us and got fked up for it so we owe you one. Just the way I see things.

And as for admitting to being a "greedy, selfish, profiteer, out to make a buck at the expense of this organization"...if the only other option is a selfless, communist hippy out to give away everything he owns and loves to the homeless so that he can join them, then the answer is yep - you've got me pegged.

Thanks for posting the article, crunch.

An excerpt from the op-ed:

"Anthony Love, president and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, says the issues raised against the project are emotional, irrational and inaccurate. Such residential facilities keep most residents off the streets and, contrary to property owners' fears, do not decrease property values and in some cases provide a catalyst for redevelopment. He's appealing for a public dialogue with opponents of Magnolia Glen to correct false perceptions."

Is this guy on crack? Is that why he's arguing for this shelter - so he can get high on crack and then crash at the homeless shelter?

Let me be as blunt and non-pc about this as I can: homeless people, specifically homeless single adults, not families, have nothing to lose. If they loiter, beg, steal, rob (stealing and robbing usually for the homeless with a drug habit to support) they might succeed or they might end up in jail for a couple of nights where they get fed and can sleep indoors - not bad options. So yes, I think they are more apt to break the law. Building a shelter just invites them to come be more apt to break the law in the neighborhood. The only reason there are already homeless people near the MG area is because there's free shelter (abandoned buildings and such).

By the way, when people talk about keeping the homeless off "the streets" they really mean off their streets (or off the streets they use to get to work and go to dinner). Homeless people want to stay in a shelter all day everyday about as much as you want to stay home all day everyday - they're going to end up on someone's streets.

And as for homeless shelters being catalysts for redevelopment, I would love to hear of examples of new residential or commercial developers or homebuyers that decided to come to a neighborhood because the neighborhood had several homeless housing facilities. Oh the synergy!

There are real reasons that most people do not want a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. Perhaps Mr. Love thinks that everyone needs their perceptions "corrected." More likely he needs his corrected.

I agree with the last thought of our op-editor: let them convince a community to host the shelter and then build there. Yeah, good luck with that.

Nope. I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding resident who thinks a new homeless facility near Eastwood is better for Houston than "real growth and development". Homeless shelters don't increase our homeless population. They can help homeless people become homed people. I'd much rather have that than higher property values and more shopping. I think we can narrow it down to the subset of those tax-paying, law-abiding residents who bought real estate on the cheap where the poor and homeless live and want to profit from moving the poor and homeless somewhere else.

Not so. My family has been in Eastwood for decades (and has no plans of moving) and we'd be quite happy to pass on this new shelter.

I have a feeling that the next mayor could be a real hard rear when it comes to the homeless. It seems to run in cycles.

Thanks for the nomination.

Not as good for whom? For homeless people in need or for homed people looking for an easy way to profit on real estate?

Um, how about for tax-paying, law-abiding, residents who want the neighborhood to be cleaner and safer?

indiginous remember lol

i had no idea there were so many native americans in eastwood.

They should build this in The Heights.

lol.

i mean, i understand the pro-shelter "arguments" (cheap site, plenty of homeless nearby, maybe the shelter can pick up some of the druggies from the crack houses too), but in the end this is only part of a continuing effort to keep these shelters out of the more developed neighborhoods and consolidate them into one area away from the gentrified west side of town.

am i an enlightened, forward-thinking, altruistic soul if i propose to build a bunch of homeless shelters in my neighbor's backyard and none in mine? if he complains, who's guilty of NIMBY then? both, but one is honest about it.

the truth is no one wants these shelters near their homes, businesses, recreational areas. and no one wants to build a home or business near an existing shelter. everyone prefers that homeless people congregate somwhere else. once you acknowledge that, it becomes clear that the choice of where to put a homeless shelter is nothing more than a matter of political power. and i strongly applaud Rodriguez for flexing some.

i have more points, but i'm old and this rant has made me quite sleepy.

Hell no - no more shelters. We need to move Eastwood up in the ranks, not down. The developer says that they want to use this location because it's cheap. Well guess what - adding another homeless shelter is just going to help keep the area cheap and underdeveloped. No thanks. We have enough shelters as it is.

I agree that a shelter may be better than an abandoned facility, but it's not as good as real growth and development. Hell, it's not even as good as just leveling the place.

As for the folks saying that we need to pick our battles, that's the kind of attitude that has kept and will continue to keep Eastwood from developing and getting rid of the crack houses, etc. I say fight every battle, inch by inch if we have to. I see no reason to give in.

guess you're not a fan of mid century buildings.

not a big fan, no, but I respect mid century architecture. I do think that a redesign would help their business. But if they don't do that, at least they can replace the light bulbs in the sign, maintain the building, etc.

it fills up completely some weekends.

ah - nevermind then.

danax has left the building!

so I've heard! bummer about that. hope he comes back.

yeah let's doze it.

maybe not doze, but clean up a little. not just for the benefit of our eyes, but I'm sure it would help their business too. just based on the look of their building I had guessed that they were going out of business (or that they only sold 60s style furniture ).

btw, does that ginormous parking lot of theirs ever fill up all the way? if not, would be nice of them to turn some of it into green space to help beautify the area. i know, i know - then they'd have to do upkeep, etc, but hey - that's what being a good corporate resident is all about!

Awesome info guys!

How about electricians - any you'd recommend?

flipper,

Do you use CHWF for hardwood refinishing or another company?

red,

Who did you use and were you happy with the job they did?

Really? You guys think that TV movie was a distrubing depiction of a nuclear bomb? All it made me think of was how far we've come in visual effects.

I always thought the nightmare in Terminator 2 was pretty scary (and accurate?).

Granted - there I think it's supposed to be a hydrogen bomb, but...close enough.

Anyway, watching that again makes me want to go shelter shopping.

Singing Boys never disbanded - it just changed its name to Houston Boychoir.

www.houstonboychoir.com

(Google is our friend. )

You just missed the 45th Annual Winter Concert.

Strange - this property is listed as having a structure on it.

http://www.commgate.com/index.cfm?pagename...m&ln=155782

I agree with anyone who wants to see a grocery store, townhomes or something decent and residential-oriented here. Actually I'd love to just see a whole bunch of trees here, but I know that'll never happen. Anybody have a spare 7 mil lying around?

danax, let me know if I can help at all with your idea about doing something about the RR xings in Eastwood. I'm a new East-ender, but a native Houstonian. I think just getting the area designated a quiet zone would be sufficient, but if you wanted to go the under/overpass route, I would say overpass for sure - to avoid the underpass rainy day water pit scenario like where Ernestine meets 45.

Can someone post a picture of the demolition?