sarahiki

Hi all, thought you might a virtual vacation in the land of the euro. These are mostly from Menerbes and Arles.

I haven't posted photos before so please excuse me if these don't post properly the first time:

This is the most disheartening thing about this discussion to me.

No one, save for VERY VERY few people WANT abortions. Not even those on the side of choice. Yet both sides go after each other so viciously. It is sickening to me.

I do not believe in abortion as a means of "oops" prevention. I also do not believe that an abortion in the first trimester is murder. I do believe that later term abortions should be banned. I also believe that save for the case of late term abortions, it isn't my choice what someone chooses to do to their bodies. I am a Constitutionalist and a firm believer that save for the cases where someones choices adversely affect others, they are none of my business.

I just wish the two polarized sides could quit the self righteous pissing match and focus on helping people stay out of trouble rather than what to do when the mistake has already been made.

The concept that we should ban abortion but we shouldn't teach sex education (how it is taught now isn't working) or promote safe sex is a pretty ridiculous paradox of the right.

I disagree with this. The concept that the man should have no say is absurd. If he doesn't want it and she chooses to keep it, he is still held responsible financially for that child. Conversely, if he wants it and she doesn't, he has no right on the matter. This is the definition of unfairness.

You put all of that very well... I agree with you on most points. The idea of an abortion, any abortion, truly breaks my heart. And yet, I am pro-choice. I think the most immoral thing happening today is the way that our government and others are putting obstacles between people and birth control. To limit access to birth control is morally abhorrent, in my view.

You're calling MM a patriot? What's the weather like in hell today? Getting colder I bet.

You can love your country without loving its leaders.

Our car needed about $800 worth of work the week the check came. Guess how I spent it?

Man, they need to start this in midtown!

I *really* don't mean to sound preachy by saying this, but I think "they" is "you." Assuming you live in midtown?

Americans have to get over the postcard stereotype of life in Europe as being cobblestone alleys and half-timber homes. They have sprawling suburbs and freeways and Wal-Marts and strip malls just like us.

It's our gift to the world.

Certainly true, but I am at present in a town in France with the narrowest streets and most hairpin turns I think I've ever seen. Most of the cars are quite tiny but the larger ones do manage. They just don't have as many parking options.

I think the two examples you offer would be near impossible. More likely would be if the R and D were more to the center, like a McCain/Lieberman ticket.

John Stewart told McCain that he couldn't lose if he put Hillary in the #2 spot on his ticket. McCain looked completely shocked at the idea. He was almost speechless for a moment, then allowed that he had never considered it, and it would never happen. I wondered the same thing asked above, if it could happen that we'd see a mixed-party ticket. Based on McCain's response, it seems the answer is still no.

It's a matter of scale. I don't mind a few hundred politically-energized loons getting together to listen to an empty rhetoric-filled stump speech...which btw, I don't consider to be a form of political participation, on account of that its a tightly controlled and totally rehearsed spectator sport...but when 75k persons engage in an act of mass lunacy, that gives reason for pause.

Just to clarify: Voter Turnout = Participation in Democracy = Good; Stump Speech Turnout = Pretty Creepy = Dangerous.

You are so wrong. Obama and Clinton are still fighting for the nomination, so shows of support like this actually matter, to gain superdelegate votes, just like a vote matters. There is nothing creepy or dangerous about it, and it's totally out-there to call Obama supporters "loons" or their presence there "mass lunacy." That kind of rhetoric is what's crazy.

I'm curious how the rubber under the playground will hold up in the heat. It was getting uncomfortably warm last Saturday. I hope it doesn't liquify and turn into a sort of roach motel for children.

EWWWWWWW!!!

thanks for that visual....

So the Children's Museum office building on Binz and Jackson is now complete, and I've noticed that they've started construction on the adjacent lot at Binz and Crawford. I think they razed an old house there (I could be wrong though, whatever was there was apparently unmemorable).

Any idea what's up?

I think the adjacent lot was formerly the CMH offices; now that they have the new office building, my guess would be that they are going to use the old lot for some other purpose--education, auditorium, offices, I don't know. But I am guessing that it still belongs to the Children's Museum.

Actually, the Fiesta down near Reliant is really a good one and there's a nice Kroger and Super Target near Main and Kirby. All of these are not really that far either.

I think there's reason to hope for a supermarket on Almeda one of these days. Lots of new residential in the Museum District with nowhere to shop; not to mention the Third Ward with not much more than the neighborhood beer & soda stores.

Hi adameepoo (and others)

I've really enjoying reading this post...very interesting, enough to get me to signup for this forum.

I just wanted to add my two cents to the question of the house values.

Having moved into a new community on the South side of Houston in 2005 the value of my house has pretty much depericated.

To make it even worst is the HCAD "market" value of my home is COMPLETELY out of sync with actual selling trends in my neighborhood.

I'm too am a single person with no person to support outside of myself and my dog. If I had 50k right now to invest in something, the last thing I would consider would be a house. That is from an investment, trying to get the highest roi, standpoint.

However, if you need a place to stay and see renting as a waste of money, getting a house would be your best solution to that problem. Builders are reducing homes and many homes are for sale. It's a complete buyers market and yours for the taking. In looking at new home pricing list I got 6 months to 1 year ago to current rates, I'm seeing price reductions from 10k - 20k.

Another thing I was thinking, and please correct me if I'm totally off base here (legally and/or finanically). You mentioned using your IRA if things get really bad financially. However, wouldn't you have to pay crazy taxes on that come years end? Would it (and I'm truely asking a question here), be better to use the IRA as the downpayment for your first house tax free and keep your already taxed 50k for that rainy day?

NONA

Nona, do you mind if I ask what general neighborhood you're in? I didn't realize there actually been depreciation in Houston. I know some of the 'burbs have been pretty flat, but that's scary that there are neighborhoods that have lost value.

Anyone else know of neighborhoods losing value?

Thanks again for all the suggestions. We had lunch at the Iron Cactus, checked out the Nasher Sculpture center, rode the trolley to the West Village for dinner at an awesome place called Cru... great food, great wine, highly recommend!

Dallas was fabulous. It was so nice sitting at the Iron Cactus and looking out the window at the combination of historic buildings, shops, and skyscrapers. And the trolley ride through pretty neighborhoods, all the action in the West Village... very impressive!

The buildings vacated for demolition on Wheeler are between Calhoun and Cullen, on the south side. A bunch of single-family homes with big Metro signs stuck on them.

Oh, I heard something about a terminal being planned by UH. I'm not surprised to hear that demolition would be needed at the point of the rail terminus. I wonder about other places along Wheeler, though? I remember watching some townhomes go up just west of Almeda over the past couple of years, and wondering if anyone had thought about the possibility of the city claiming domain. Is the rail likely to fit in the existing lanes, with there still being room for cars?

If you want to play semantics, then, it's debt that my taxes will be continuously financing for the next several decades.

I'm with you... this is nobody's money. It's borrowed money that we'll all have to pay for. So in a sense, Memebag may be paying for your check or my check in the future, but you and me will be paying for our checks and countless others from people who pay little to no taxes.

the whole idea is irresponsible; it sends the wrong message (borrow money and spend it, that's good!!). However, I bet it will work. For example, I plan to stick my whole check into savings to pad that account a little for future months of high gas/grocery bills. But I've got that "money in my pocket" feeling because of the check and can't help thinking about that camera I've been wanting to buy, etc. I'm sure no matter how good people's intentions are, they are going to do some spending.

You may have noticed by now the "Happy Duran Duran Day" graphic at the top of the HAIF pages.

Here it is again:

Here's a little contest: Why do I call May Fifth, 2008 "Duran Duran Day?"

First person with the correct answer wins an incredibly small prize.

Wow, one of the most surprising thread titles I've seen in a while! I have no idea what the significance of the date is... but I will venture a guess. The 25th anniversary of the release of that Duran Duran classic single "Rio?"

The only way they're supposed to be able to break the 10% homestead cap is if you did remodeling or additions on the improvements....did you?

We added a deck. That's it.

The Chronicle has become a practical punching bag for the right (via Dan Patrick) and (though maybe not now) the left (the Houston Press). I have also noticed on their website that some of their stories have misspelled words and run-on sentences.

They also endorsed George W. Bush - a liberal in conservative clothing to be truthful. Even Texas Monthly gave them a "Bum Steer Award".

No wonder they can't seem to get most of the big prizes other big papers get.

Who is a liberal in conservative clothing--George W. Bush, or the Chronicle? You can't mean W.

If you mean the Chronicle, I would agree that there is something a little schizo about their politics, but I wouldn't describe it as liberal in conservative clothing. More like liberal but too woosey to follow through on it some of the time.

they'll lower the appraised if you say something.

Okay. I guess I'm wasting my breath to point out how absurd it is for them to break their own rules.

are you homesteaded?

I am homesteaded. Here are the numbers:

2007 Market: 197,026 Appraised: 197,026

2008 Market: 218, 713 Appraised: 218,713

So both went up 11%.

Post #53... in this thread...

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I'm saying that my tax appraisal went up 11%. NOT my market appraisal. Post #53 seems to be in reference to the market appraisal going up. So I still don't get how my tax appraisal could be raised 11%.

OK... So if you don't mind me asking... Assuming you have established your place as your homestead. The max is no more than a 10% increase, by law. Right? So for everyone on here... that is seeing more than a 10% increase - on your homestead property - what is the deal? Why would HCAD purposely, in violation of state law, increase your taxes beyond the legal limit? Which is going to invite all kinds of protest. It doesn't seem like it is in their best interest, to violate the law, in such a fashion. Does the 10% apply only to the structure? And they can increase your land value, to the moon, without fear?

Someone please explain.

I have the same question... my appraisal went up 11%. The tax appraisal, not market appraisal. Is this not illegal?

Hey, I would suggest eating a Patrizio in Highland Park Village. If you want Mexican, I would suggest Manny's in Uptown or Mi Cocina in West Village.

The hotel you are staying at is just across I-35 from everything and is in a good location. Close to Uptown, Turtle Creek, Oaklawn and Downtown.

Patrizio's sounds nice. Thanks!

The Anatole is in the Market Center about a mile or two from downtown (too far to walk anywhere). But for some suggestions of places to eat at night here are a few ideas (I'm sure you can search for their individual websites or online revues):

Iron Cactus: Downtown rooftop restaurant/bar on Main Street - for a casual place in the heart of the skyscrapers. http://www.ironcactus.com/dallas.asp

Sambuca: upscale restaurant with live entertainment on McKinney Avenue across from the Ritz in Uptown. http://www.sambucarestaurant.com/

West Village: trendy Uptown shopping district with lots of outdoor patios to see and be seen. Always busy in the evenings. http://www.westvil.com/

Knox-Henderson: another area of good shops and restaurants not far from West Village. http://dallas.citysearch.com/roundup/41689

Bishop Arts District: interesting area of galleries and restaruants in old Oak Cliff. http://www.bishopartsdistrict.com/

The West End is where most tourists end up, but the restaurants there are mostly chains http://www.dallaswestend.org/. Victory Park is also worth checking out but I prefer the others I've listed http://www.victorypark.com/

All of those areas are nice to walk around during the day as well (the West End has Dealey Plaza, museums, etc and according to their website it looks like they have a Cinco de Mayo festival). Other nearby places to see on a nice day are the Nasher Sculpture Center http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org and Fair Park http://www.fairpark.org.

Great suggestions everyone, thanks so much! I remember now that I went to the Iron Cactus in Austin. The Dallas location sounds nice, in terms of the view.

I think we'll also check out the Nasher, since we'll be right at the museum anyway.

I'm looking forward to seeing Dallas. I have no idea what to expect.

When you're tearing down old homes that had small footprints and trees scattered randomly in front and back yards and replacing them with townhomes that have a little patio in back and one driveway after another in front, there just isn't much room for trees at all. You can get around this in developments that have a larger land area and a greater number of units by using common driveways, but even then, having trees regularly spaced along the street was not part of the original landscaping for the prior land use, so the mature ones are mostly destroyed and new ones must be planted in order to have what you're describing. In the mean time, the urban canopy is damaged. Even when the new plantings grow into mature trees, having them only on the perimeter tends to reduce the total number of trees, and the fact that the new buildings are taller than the trees means that the urban heat island effect is still very much of an issue.

The most difficult challenge is that we only have so many large developable parcels in Houston's urban core. These represent the greatest opportunity for increasing the urban canopy through new landscaping, and since many of them were former industrial or retail properties, mature trees that have to be cut down are less common. Single family lots have fewer potential uses because of fractured ownership, so the only options are tree-unfriendly Townhomes and McMansions...but single-family is the predominant land use even in Houston's urban core, which were streetcar suburbs to begin with. The fact that this represents such a large portion of our densification opportunity but also harbors the bulk of our urban canopy is the crux of the problem. Densification in these areas necessarily kills trees.

Resorting to historical preservation and tree cutting bans places a limit on urban densities in areas that are most able to support them, such as Houston's urban core. But the additional households being created in our burgeoning region will locate somewhere; if not the inner city, then further out, less convenient to places they like to work and play.

It's a shame that there is no single viable set of planning policy that can solve our environmental issues. Unintended consequences cannot be avoided. No magic bullet. No utopia. That's the truth of it.

I agree with your point, for the most part. But I do think that the benefit of densification outweighs the loss of trees, in many cases. I do hate to see *nice* single-family homes being torn down in favor of townhouses, and some neighborhoods really can't support densification. I'm thinking of areas off of Washington, with narrow streets that are now so packed with the cars of the densified residents that I don't think an ambulance could get through if needed. There, single-family bungalows fit the bill nicely, and their replacement did more harm than destroying trees (though it did that, as well). But as you said, industrial areas, or extra-large lots (as in the third ward, for example) can support densification. In the third ward, I would never enjoy seeing lovely homes demolished, but I am happy to see abandoned mansions-turned-crackhouses (or whatever was going on in there... the one I observed had a lot of unsavory traffic, that's all I know) turned into townhouses. Improvement however you look at it. And there are enough trees from the surrounding homes and parks that the loss of urban canopy is negligable.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree. I would also point out that in Houston trees grow pretty fast. Simple rules requiring them to be planted with new homes, including townhomes, would do a lot.