Marksmu

I still don't understand the hatred of people in cars behind cyclists (especially in the city). If you don't like the cyclist in front of you, just go over to a different road. The cyclist slowed you down (by at most) a couple minutes and was obeying the law. You're throwing a hissy-fit and getting worked up over nothing. Chill out, roll down the window, enjoy the drive down Heights Blvd, and respect your fellow man who happens to want to get some exercise and not use a car.

Internet griping does not equal hatred.....I was not annoyed at the biker so much as the selfish attitude of the biker...his time is apparently worth more than 80-100 cumulative other peoples.

Its like making everyone behind you at a restaurant wait to order their meal b/c you are next in line and you are buying for your boss who has you on hold....why should everyone else wait for just one person when that person could just step aside and let the next one go.

Nobody got worked up, nobody tried to take the biker out, nobody even honked - but you could see the lines of cars behind him that were swerving left/right trying to figure out what the big hold up was about.

I guess my best bet is to just ride around on bicycles in giant packs with my friends, then. Use our majority to do what we want.

Once bicycles replace cars as the prominent and most widely used form of transportation then yes you will be the majority user. Until then your not helping your cause.

It's not just the required seat belts that are the big users of space. Its the child seats. That's where the real arms race in size is. They are friggin huge. I'll be glad when the last two little ones get tall and heavy enough to be only in belts. It will be much more room and comfort for everyone else in the vehicle. I admit - they probably are safer for the little ones (although with it seems like just about every single brand eventually being recalled - who knows) but man to they take up space.

Those toddler seats are gigantic. My back seat is enormous and the toddler seat takes up part of the middle seat on the bench....In my wifes much smaller car, two toddler seats would take up the whole back. There would be no usable middle seat and the kids would be able to reach out and smack each other.

The infant seats are not too bad though....Right now Im only 1 infant seat and 1 toddler seat. If we had a third before number 1 was out of the toddler seat I would need another vehicle. How ridiculous is that? A huge truck cant legally seat three kids under 5?

it's not unwarranted (I don't think), but it is ultimately a justification for the choice a person makes, depending on point of view, that justification could be sloughed off as being a pithy justification, where theirs is nobler.

Marksmu decides to drive a truck because he feels that it helps him manage his ranch better. the guy commuting by bike decides to ride a bike (I'd guess) because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and allows him to afford living in the heights. I'll bet that either of them, when confronted with the opposite person's justification would agree it's a good reason.

It would be easy to say that an old beater of a truck that you keep on the farm would be exceedingly cheap to purchase and maintain (coupled with an economical small or mid-sized car for city driving). Compared to the cost of a driving a truck daily and occasional farm use, it's probably an even cheaper overall proposition. at the end of the day though, he's got his reasons, and that's fine by me. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to people who don't make the same decisions as him.

would he rather a vehicular version of historic districts that restricted vehicular use of streets based on the type of vehicle you're using? Sounds really great, put the bikes on one street, and cars on another, and just don't let trucks drive on anything except for the freeways. actually, that doesn't sound too bad.

Indeed an on farm vehicle would be ideal, if I only needed it on the farm....but there are few on farm uses for a truck, and the farm is rural and very few of the things I need the truck for are available locally...I actually feel that I'm at a competitive advantage as to having my property within an hour of Houston....I get everything here in Houston for a fraction of the price that the truly rural property owners have to pay....I pick stuff up throughout the week, leave it on the trailer and then haul the trailer back to the farm on weekends. Its incredibly convenient, and its a huge cost savings. Also most true "farm trucks" are not street legal (IE they run off-road diesel - no taxes)....its not legal to use one of those trucks to bring a load of cattle to market.

When actually on the farm, the truck is parked...everything is done by tractor or UTV....Our property is very low and frequently wet...trucks just get stuck...they are more work than help.

Anyways, I dont begrudge anyone for what they drive or if they ride...I just wish everyone had the common courtesy to look up out of the world they are living and see if the actions they are taking are causing quite a few others to be inconvenienced...We all know Heights blvd is a great place to ride a bike, unless the bike lane is blocked...when its blocked its a bad place to ride a bike. Up until yesterday my main complaint with bike riders on Heights is that they never obey any traffic laws...the guy yesterday was just an poopy head...there was any number of things he could have done to not block traffic and he chose none of them. Conversely any driver could have peeled off and gone another route as well, but it seems to me the majority user should not have to cater to the minority user.

And it sounds like based on your experience it increased your drive time (and that of others) by about a whole 30-45 seconds. I'm staggered at his complete selfishness and lack of regard for your 30 seconds you could have saved on your commute.

edit: if I were cycling down heights, and were of a mind to malicious about the situation, I'd likely just stick my foot out and knock the trash cans out of my way, inconveniencing the people who try to inconvenience me, but really force me to inconvenience motorists.

He never exceed 18mph. I was not so much inconvenienced as were the other 80 cars behind me...I just fail to understand why once he realized the entire bike lane was blocked he did not divert to street with FAR less traffic.

LOL stop the hyperbole already. Bicyclists are among the smallest effects on your commute time or gas mileage.

As I posted before, you aren't selfish, you're just lashing out because you feel powerless and out of control when you have to share the road with bicyclists. Which makes you a dangerous driver, IMO.

Im not the one who burned all the extra fuel, it was the 80-100 cars behind me, who sat at the light at 6th again, who sat on the feeder waiting to turn onto Heights, and who then sat stop/go all the way down heights b/c it was going to take about 8-10 light cycles to normalize the traffic again. He literally backed up the entire blvd.

Im not aggressive or dangerous behind the wheel...just the opposite, I'm very passive..I have not been ticketed since I was 19, but when I see someone inconveniencing others Im not too PC to point it out. One person creates an annoyance, however minor, because he is too selfish to realize a problem and move to a less congested street to alleviate it....and I have no problem with the bike rider kicking the garbage cans over...You create a problem you get to deal with the repercussions.

And I do ride my bike down the hike/bike trail frequently....I often ride kids in tow down to the marble slab @ target....its a great ride and I block zero cars and avoid the runners/walkers....When I ride, I always believe the cars have the right of way, regardless of the law.

Sounds like you have the 6.0 SuperDuty. Is that right? That one was notorious for engine fires caused by the EGR regen cycle. You're right about EGR being a flawed technology. Speaking of going down in flames - Navistar bet the whole company on EGR instead of SCR for their big rigs too - and they just completely dumped all their last 10+ years work and are scrambling to license SCR tech from Caterpiller because the EPA said that their EGR does not and will never achieve the emissions level required. So the once favored technology has almost destroyed a big old corporation. I have a feeling that somebody will buy them up before long - they are hurting so bad from this.

You should have bought an old-school Powerstroke. Those 7.3's last forever. I still get between 15-16 mpg on mine. Turned over 349,000 miles two weeks ago.

But since you're being harangued by the HAIF do-goody police, I suggest instead you buy this:

It should suffice for your towing and commuting needs all in one vehicle.

I do have the 6.0....had most of the engine replaced under warranty at 99,000 miles after it started smoking. EGR valve stuck open and caused the engine to get too hot...then it started leaking coolant and blowing white smoke....Ford knew the problem the second I drove it in the lot. New EGR valve, heads, head gaskets, 3 injectors, oil cooler, and a couple other miscellaneous parts that were fouled up by the defective EGR valve. Ford tech told me to have an EGR delete as soon as I put another 12,000 miles on it (new warranty for the repairs done)

I crossed that mark and did the delete....I was tempted to do the full upgrade putting in new studs, a performance oil cooler, and new intake, but the truck was paid for and the extra $4000 was not worth it in my mind.

As to that truck - I could not even back that out of my driveway....the street is too narrow. It would be a beast when towing though....Can't imagine its a fuel sipper....I feel that 17/22 is pretty good mileage considering the size and capabilities of the vehicle....there are lots of SUV's and sedans that do much worse than I do.

Why not take Yale? Heights Blvd is slow even w/out a biker on it. I would venture to guess he was riding around 22mph, probably had a car 25 yards in front of him, but you probably didn't notice that because you were pissed you couldn't floor it to the next red light.

The Yale right turn lane is all jacked up right now forcing you to merge with the middle lane before making a right turn from the I-10 Feeder....Its not really a good option unless you cut over from Heights - even then its very rough and its often difficult to get onto 11th from Yale b/c there is no protected left. If you cut through the side streets its often difficult to get a good opening to cut across traffic right at peak rush hour.

I was only 2 cars back from the bike rider, there was nobody in front of him. He got caught at the light at 6th and stopped as the first person in the dead center of the road....He accelerated painfully slow and there was not a single car in front of him until you got close to the light at 11th. He topped out at about 18mph....I would bet 6 or 7 cars got through the light at 6th before it changed again, and by the time he got to 11th and turned right I could see in my mirrors that traffic was bumper to bumper all the way back as far as I could see.

As to the trash cans - he could have navigated around them, but he chose not to...its not like they are big obstacles - he chose not to bc it was inconvenient for HIM. So, in his self righteous I have a legal right to ride here glory, he backed up the entire road....it probably took more than 10 minutes for normal traffic to be reestablished. Not only that there are any number of streets not nearly as busy as Heights during peak rush hour - he did not take those streets b/c Heights has a bike trail. When he decided it was blocked he should have cut over but he didnt b/c he didnt want to be inconvenienced by having to start/stop at the stop signs.

Its hard to believe the Bike riders really do think that they are not a problem during rush hour....I'm not in a hurry but the selfishness is astounding. 100 people add 5 minutes to their commute and probably burn cumulatively more than 5-10 extra gallons of gas so ONE person either does not have to navigate around trash cans, OR so that same person does not have to start/stop at stop signs on the next street over. And us vehicle operators are the selfish ones?

Your generalizations are getting ridiculous. I also ride politely and certainly do not inconvenience every person I encounter. When I'm driving my car and come across a cyclist, I don't feel inconvenienced at all. Maybe I have more patience than you or maybe it's because I ride too. Who knows? Like I said before, I'm just puzzled at why some cyclists choose to ride on major roads. No inconvenience to me, but I think they are dumb for risking their lives that way.

Its not the evening riders or the early morning riders that anyone complains about - its those that choose to ride on busy, major thoroughfares, during rush hour...nobody dislikes bikes being on the roads when they are courteous and ride at responsible times. Its usually the hardcore riders, who chose to ride during peak rush hour times, presumably to work, that are the problem riders....I attempted to take a photo yesterday of captain jerk on Heights BLVD at 5:30 last night....He was riding North Bound smack in the middle of the car lane b/c it was inconvenient for him to have dodge the various garbage cans that people had already set out. He had traffic STOPPED all the way from 8th back to the Highway. He could not care less about the 100 cars behind him who he pissed off. Its those people who ruin it for the rest of you riders.

LOL. Reduced relative to what? to the gas guzzler it would have been? 17/22 mpg hardly qualifies as fuel economy. I sure hope you work in construction or haul some serious cargo for having 1.5 ton truck.

I run a ranch on the weekends, I use the truck to haul feed/hay/cattle/horses/tractors - no less than three times per month, but usually more like 6-8. I can't afford two vehicles, so the one I can afford has to be able to do both work and commuting....If you know a more fuel efficient means of moving big loads I would love to know it...Paying someone else is not an option b/c livestock usually choose to have their problems during the hours that normal people are asleep or opening Christmas presents...You cant afford to wait to find someone else in most instances.

Removing EPA emissions devices makes a lot of sense when you actually look into the devices and realize that their intended purpose was purely political in nature and even then did not accomplish the goal desired.

There's nothing inconvenient about safely piloting your vehicle around obstacles that have a legitimate right to be there: it is your duty as a motorist. If you feel your duties are inconvenient, perhaps another form of transportation would be more to your liking?

Nobody is questioning their legitimate right to be there, but when they cause backups and 40-50 cars are sitting around not going anywhere changing lanes, playing bumper cars trying to avoid bikes that are slowing an entire roadway - then ya, they are inconveniencing people. Its not a big inconvenience but its an inconvenience. Stopping at red lights in the middle of the night when there is no traffic in any direction in sight is an inconvenience too...nobody questions the fact that they have to stop at the light - but it sure does seem stupid.

But, but, but, but... those bike riders are selfish. Don't they realize that I am in a hurry? What about ME and MY time? My modified truck that violates those pesky EPA rules because I shouldn't have to follow any commie governmental regulations that try and give us things like clean air and waterways shouldn't have to slow down for selfish bike riders. Seriously, selfish bike riders are selfish. I am talking about ME here and how this affects MY life.

Signed,

SMUMark

Those pesky bike riders are not just inconveniencing me - they are inconveniencing the other 25-30 cars that they around, and they are doing it on a continual basis until they reach their destination...once I am past them its over for me - but they are just another cars problem 100 feet further down the road...They inconvenience far more than just me -they inconvenience more people than not...Its not about me...Im not the selfish one, the bike rider is the selfish one. I inconvenience nobody as I drive politely and with the speed of traffic - the bike rider inconveniences every single person that he encounters.

As to modifying my truck, your dang right I did, and I have no guilt about it at all....The EPA mandates on diesel engines remains one of the dumbest regulations to ever come through that absolutely worthless political hack Agency. By removing an exhaust gas recirculator [EGR valve] (which literally takes extremely hot exhaust gas and funnels it back into the engine to be burned again to remove carbon] you reduce the efficiency of the engine by about 20%...

In order for the engine to be able to burn the exhaust gas (instead of fresh air) the engine requires more fuel to combust the diesel because much of the air is now devoid of oxygen (diesel does not use a spark plug like gas)...the increase in fuel burned actually creates more pollution than the engine did prior to the EGR....Not only that, but the EGR causes the engine to operate at a much higher temperature causing premature failure of a number of engine components....EGR came about in 2005 and by 2011 only Dodge still uses it. All commercial trucks, light duty diesel trucks, tractors, etc have all discontinued its use and now use SCR technology, which introuduces UREA to the exhaust to do the same thing....EGR Valves contributed far more pollution than they ever saved, not only through increased fuel usage for the vehicle, increased refinery emissions from increased usage, but also through the scrapping and remanufacturing of a litany of engine components, as well as about 15% of the vehicles that met the scrap pile because the engine overheated and through a rod or cracked the block....So do I feel bad/guilty or special or cool for removing the EGR valve? Nope. I did the environment a favor....I reduced both emissions and fuel consumption.

Policies written by the government and then shoved down manufacturers throats are rarely good from a consumer or engineering standpoint....But hey continue on with your ignorant soapbox preaching...if you say something enough times more idiots will believe you.

On neighborhood Heights streets, it will never happen, regardless your attempted stretch of the statute to fit your argument. The cops won't write the ticket, and it wouldn't hold up in court if they did.

But, if it makes you feel better, you can start a thread about it on freerepublic. They'd probably agree with you there.

I know the cops wont ever write the tickets....they are too busy harassing those evils hooligans driving 38 mph over the Shepherd bridge to write a ticket for obstructing traffic...but nonetheless the bicycles are obstructing traffic.

On neighborhood streets I really have no problem sharing the road with bikes...but that is never where they ride. They prefer to ride where they dont have to stop/start too...They routinely, as in every 2-3 days obstruct quite a bit of traffic where Yale/Heights merge as they approach Memorial....when they cross the bridge in the right lane traveling all of 8 mph they block the traffic for about 40 seconds causing quite a minor backup, as cars attempting to enter Memorial are blocked from the entrance and cars attempting to get onto Heights/Yale from Memorial are stuck unable to merge b/c the bicycle has caused a backup around it.

It is a VERY minor complaint, but it happens so frequently as to be frustrating. They are either oblivious to the back up, or they just flat out dont care....I believe its the latter....they have a legal right to do what they are doing so to hell with everyone else....

Im not sure what this freerepublic site is...Ill have to giver er a look.

Also reasonable flow of traffic means no freeway riding since ONLY freeways have speed minimums. There's nothing against the law as far as driving slower than the rest of traffic, my grandfather does it all the time.

I don't agree with your interpretation....If your impeding the flow of traffic what is reasonable is probably up to the officers discretion. We know its illegal to ride on a highway b/c it has minimum speed limits, but it is also illegal to drive too slow on any road when doing so creates a hazard to other drivers...I believe the same can be imputed to a bike...if your riding so slow that traffic is building up around you b/c they cant get past you easily then you are indeed breaking the law.

It's just a matter of time; so to all my bike riding friends I say "roll strapped!"

Take that as fair warning drivers, I'll shoot you 1st and ask questions later.

Its pretty hard to pull your gun, let alone aim it, as you roll helplessly head over foot into a 18 caliper inch live oak

Speaking of irony...

I wrote that hoping for a far bigger response than I got. I intentionally made that an easy target to get a rise of folks.

As to not being able to afford gas? I don't worry about that....my 1.5 ton Truck gets better gas mileage than many cars....after deleting the ridiculous EPA emission controls from the diesel engine and adding a programmer (once it finally went out of warranty) my fuel economy went from 14/17 to 17/22.

At $8 gallon gas I can still happily drive wherever I want in my truck...My office is only 17 miles from home, an $8 commute each way is not going to hurt me at all, heck if gas went to $8 it may reduce traffic so much that I will actually get better fuel economy than I do now.

If bicyclists don't think they are getting special treatment by inconveniencing the other 99.99999% of the population by using the roads and traveling drastically below the speed limit, at a rate of speed that is FAR below any vehicles most fuel efficient ranges they are crazy. If cars got on the road and went 10-14 mph they would get pulled over by the police all the time for not traveling with traffic flow and obstructing others....bikes do this daily without any repercussions. Luckily when the Walmart is open those bikers will need to get in their car to be able to get home with the massive piles of cheap Chinese junk they were able to buy at WalMart - so traffic should improve somewhat.

You will never convince the majority of Houston drivers that they are not the victims of bicyclists.

And perhaps your attempt is not futile. Could it be a pro-Walmart virus infecting the forum?

The majority is right....Im tired of everyone cowtowing and acting like the minority user deserves special treatment.

Just get out of the way, your slow, you break all the rules of the road, and you are inconveniencing far more people than not. Bicycle riders are selfish, regardless of whether or not they have a legal right to use the road, they are still, nonetheless selfish.

Seriously. Lets assume the picture is correct.

1. The no trucks signs are posted at the threshold of this light. So by continuing they are obviously disregarding the sign.

2. Why would someone drive past heights to take a left on yale to take a left back to heights, take two more rights and then cross yale in an 18 wheeler? It is absurd.

3. He is also running a red light.

I actually do assume the picture is correct, but I can think of any number of reasons that a truck driver could make that mistake...perhaps nobody would let him over in time turn - its not exactly a quiet intersection any more...maybe he did not see the sign until he was already stuck in the wrong lane, also easy to fix...There are a number of scenarios that the truck would still not have used the bridge on.

However, the light is red. He is screwed there.

So much for the GPS systems on Walmart trucks that would keep them from going on the Yale St. bridge.

How are we supposed to know that he used the bridge? He very easily could have just taken a left and then a right onto Heights and come back around....While it looks bad, this is not proof that the truck crossed the bridge...just saying - you have been known to manipulate the truth too many times for me to believe you.

There is an endangered rock beetle that resides only under unsold stones and only in that one particular 4 acre area! I for one can not bear the thought of the endangered rock beetle losing more of its precious habitat! I am going to start a petition to save the rock yard so that the area can be kept in its semi-developed state as it has been for at least the last several years!

Every year migrating birds flying through Houston look down upon this site and continue flying by it! Can you imagine the devastation and confusion the birds would have if this spring on their return migration the stone yard is gone and construction vehicles occupy this space?!

Please somebody think of the the children! If those project actually happens our children's children will not be able to see this property in the same state that I have for the past 5-6 years!

I think we can safely say that it wasn't the Walmart that royally f-ed up the traffic on Heights and Yale.

It's not even open yet and late afternoon northbound traffic on both streets at I-10 has become ridiculous due to the screwed up light-timings.

I agree its the dang feeder extension! I wish every day that Yale did not connect to I-10 going westbound... it has added 5 minutes to my commute no matter which direction I come from, and when I have to sit through that light for 2-3 cycles I am almost as angry as I am at Yale when NOBODY is able to make the left turn onto 11th...

They need to add a protected left on Yale @ 11th and they need to fix the lights on Heights/Yale at I-10...damn this progress!!! But dont worry - in a few months WalMart will open and we can blame all this new traffic on it.

Ok. So there is a little house on part of that parcel. I would hardly call that "developed", but it was there. By 1980, it is completely gone and the land has been in a state of nature for over thirty years. Certainly, the new development should have to do drainage detention if they are doing more than an acre of impervious cover. And anyone in the neighborhood should look into hiring a hydrologist to look at the sheet flow of rainfall to see whether the proposed improvements to the gully will be sufficient to handle all the water that will be diverted.

City does not require a developer to do that. Your trying to require a developer you don't like to do something that is not legally required by anyone else....All the developer has to do is divert to the bayou there, and then purchase off site detention. Its really that easy....You seem to ignore the obvious answer when you dont like its outcome.

When you buy next to a field that you don't own - there is no guarantee that you will always be next to a vacant field. I really do not understand why people seem to think that they should be permitted to control what other people do with their own land.

Did it ever occur to you that the person who owned that property long ago wanted to preserve it, as well as the entire area surrounding it as a forest, or nature preserve? Perhaps the real jerks are those people who built houses all around his forest and destroyed his bird watching?

This does suck. Nine stories is completely out of scale. That is more than double the height of the neighboring apartment complex. When Studewood did six stories, I knew that we were on the slippery slope. We are now at 9 stories and the next one will probably be even taller until we get our own Ashby highrise right in the middle of the Heights (anyone living near the telephone museum should watch out). It will cast a shadow over some of the neighborhood, espeically from Fall to Spring when the sun is lower on the horizon to the south.

Its almost impossible to pick an area that would have less impact on others than this project will anywhere inside the loop. Its vacant land abutting a drainage ditch on one side, an apartment complex on one side, a lumber yard, and then a very small number of houses. Opposing this project just shows you oppose just about everything. It's not possible to be out of scale when there is no scale to compare it too...3 or 4 affected homes, a lumber yard and 4 story apartment...none have anything in common. Its a great place for such a project and it will have a stellar view of downtown that can never be blocked.

This may cause a big drainage issue. The woods act like a sponge and stores lots of water when it rains. They are replacing that sponge with a big building that will not store any water and will also divert the natural sheet flow. Anyone nearby who may be impacted may have a claim under the Texas Water Code. If they are building on more than an acre, they will have to do detention onsite.

We have building codes for these types of things. They will divert 100% of the water into the bayou and purchase off site detention credits. Its simple and its done all of the time.

The loss of wildlife habitat is significant. There are very few wooded spots that size inside the city. Houston is on the international flyway for migratory birds. In the spring and fall, migratory birds stop along the Gulf Coast to rest and refuel on their way to their summer/winter homes. When there is no appropriate habitat for a bird to land and eat, they will continue to fly until they are too depleted to fly any further. At that point, they may be too weak to find food and avoid predators. Every acre of habitat that is lost is significant, especially in an area where so much of the habitat has already been lost. Also, it was just a really nice spot on the trail that had some wildlife. It will stink to lose that.

While a few birds may land here - this is no bird haven. Any birds that land here can easily divert to the much larger Memorial park about a mile away. If it makes you feel any better though I have added an additional 14 acres to my seasonal wetland for migratory birds and purchased an additional 68 acres of wooded property that I plan to preserve as wooded. That should more than offset this miniscule loss of habitat...problem solved.

Traffic will be an issue. Most of the traffic will be in the morning and evening. Add to the growing traffic from people looking for off street parking in the evening for the bars and restuarants, and you will see a decline in the quality of life in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the traffic impact analysis process with the City is a complete joke after the City caved in to the Ashby developers. What should be a process with hard and fast standards and bright lines has basically turned into makework for traffic engineers. Anything they come up with will be approved.

Traffic is a non-issue...there are two exits to this "loop". Besides that, residents of the area dont own the streets....the city can change traffic patters at will without ever asking your permission. 100-200 cars a day even during peak times is not going to make this neighborhood less attractive...just because it currently has almost zero traffic does not mean it needs to stay this way. Do you oppose everything?

This building will negatively impact the quality of life for nearby residents. If people in the Heights think that it cannot happen to them, just look and see whether there is an old garden style apartment complex or metal shop/warehouse near them. The Ashby highrise has a very small footprint for a building that is 20+ stories. As this and other projects make clear, developers are not interested in the quality of life for the neighborhood. The City is not going to do anything to stand up to developers until people really get organized and fight for their neighborhoods.

Its hard to fathom a more appropriate location for a project like this....This will increase property values for everyone around it. I would love to own some of those properties that are surrounding this thing. Rent them out until another developer decides to emulate this project. Then sell for a huge profit. It is a perfect corridor for multiple mid rise properties. If you could acquire the 5 or so lots in from White Oak and build a mixed use building right on White Oak it would be the best of both worlds....access from two separate streets on a busy thoroughfare...its perfect for any developer.

I'm still undecided....

I dont know how anyone could be undecided in this election - its shocking to me. What the two talking heads are saying are polar opposites.

You either believe that big government is good and should do everything for everyone - in which case you like taxes, regulations, redistribution, and single payer healthcare. OR

You believe that individualism is good, you want smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, and you want a less drastic reform of healthcare.

Those are the two choices - they both suck

Personally, I think Obama is the worst president in my lifetime. I can think of nothing good that he has done while in office. Not even one thing. Anyone who responds with the ACA as a good thing loses all credibility.

Eh, I lived in Massachusetts under Romney. He was a TOTALLY different man/politician back then. If he was the same Romney (a sane Republican), I'd consider voting for him, but since he's just another in a long line of ®s pandering to the idiotic, racist, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-evolution, climate change denying (did you see what the ®s just passed in North Carolina?) base, then I think I'll pass.

This type of ridiculous rhetoric though is whats wrong with politics in this country today. Your either entirely mentally deficient, or your one of those anti-intellectuals if you actually believe that republicans are racist, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-women.

Republicans may be anti-gay, and to some extent anti-evolution but those are both non-issues....Politics should stay out of an individuals personal life and beliefs...to address your other points:

-The race argument does not even merit a response - republicans are no more racist than democrats in any way. To say otherwise is to distort the truth.

-Anti-intellectual is almost as a big of a joke. I work with and around hundreds if not thousands of engineers, some of the smartest minds in this country and I can assure that few of them are democrats. Democrats have a stranglehold on universities and their professors so they continue to spout off this non-sense, which is all it is...nonsense. There are equally as many highly educated republicans as democrats - I would even venture to say there are more highly educated republicans....The majority of the democrat party is made up of non college educated individuals.

-Anti-science is another joke. Liberals use "science" to justify purely political or personal goals....

-Climate change is at the heart of the "science" problem that liberal democrats have....Climate change is not about science or saving the environment, its about redistributing wealth. The only common denominator in all climate change bills is that they TAX someone and they redistribute those tax dollars to their friends...see the multitude of examples like Solyndra.

Main reason?

Supreme Court. I don't want another Thomas/Scalia sitting up there deciding that corporations deserve the same rights as people.

Ya - lets get some more non-racists like Sotomayor, or some more intellectually honest people like Kagan on the court...that will surely solve our problems!

I could go on, but Obama has left a legacy of destruction...if Obama needs 8 years to clean up Bush's mess, the next administration will need 32 to clean up the problems that Obama has straddled this country with.

I've got a pretty good understanding of Obamacare because I lived in Boston when it was Romneycare.

Have you seen the polls out of the Commonwealth? A huge majority love it. I know I did. My insurance costs went down by over half despite keeping the same coverage (Blue Cross Blue Shield). My coverage didn't change. Private insurers didn't flee the state. All in all, health care in Massachusetts > healthcare in Texas and it isn't even close.

Obamacare/Romneycare isn't perfect, but it's a good first step.

Boston is not Texas. Texas borders Mexico and is a gigantic open border. It is well documented that Mexican nationals cross the border illegally to have children in Texas hospitals....Logic dictates that if you are going to start giving everything away for free that you first must establish who qualifies for it....This country can not afford to just give health care away to anyone who happens to be inside our imaginary borders - contributing or not....this begs others to come here for free...not only that it offers yet another incentive for someone not to work...we don't need to give more incentives to keep people on their butts at home. All you hear about is unemployment this, unemployment that...but at my office we have had and continue to have over 60 positions open on the night shift and NOBODY wants them. When people start fighting over a good paying job with good benefits then we can start talking about offering more freebies...until then, I am hugely in favor of cutting them all off and getting people back up looking for work.

If you want to work hard and be productive your whole life and then sit in line behind someone who has never worked a day in their life - that is your prerogative....I for one do not want that to be the case. Im all for everyone getting treatment, but not when it comes at my expense.

You may have liked the care in Boston better, but I assure the quality of Boston's care was not higher than that of Texas, and I dont care what a ridiculous rating system says (they are all skewed). Houston's medical center is consistently rated among the absolute best in the world. If you don't think your getting good care then you are obviously not looking for it in the right places...a doc in the box is not the same as a good doctor just b/c they have an MD behind their name.

You cannot be serious about the 6 mil. Had Ainbinder not received 6 mil for all the infrastructure upgrades, they would have made Walmart and their tenants pay for at least a substantial portion of it. why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you really think that developers eat all the construction costs? Maybe you should think twice before resorting to name calling when you cannot even fathom the simple business of how developers deal with their costs.

Retail gravy? I hope no one has ever relied on you to invest their money. No developer in the world would want to see their profits get eaten up by poor leasing returns. Ainbinder made a lot of money off of the sale of the land to Walmart. But that is also all of the money they will get from Walmart. If the retail pads do not lease well, the Walmart profit will be stuck in empty sq footage.

I never said Ainbinder was bankrupt. That is just another strawman argument made to avoid the real argument I am making. I clearly pointed out that the worst part of the recent 380 agreements by the City is that they have been bad bets. Landry failed to meet employment numbers and ended up doing a deal to blow up the old fire alarm building in exchange for tax debt foregiveness (which is probably prohibited by the Texas constitution--gov't cannot foregive tax debts). The Pavillions went bust thanks to an idiotic cavern design that no retailer/restaurant/bar in their right mind would want to have their business hidden in an urban gorge. And Ainbinder may have Walmart, but the rest of the development is limping along so far, especially in comparison to what the leasing agent claimed it would be. Ainbinder said he didn't need the money to develop the property. The money certainly has not yeilded any kind of great commercial success. So, why should the City be playing real estate developer? The answer is that they shouldn't. They make bad decisions based on political influence.

What you dont seem to understand is that business financing is much tighter than it used to be. Its much harder to secure financing on a business, especially retail, without a good traffic count. Many franchises require traffic counts exceed numbers to get a franchise. WalMart is not open yet and Yale was NOT previously a major thoroughfare that had I-10 access....add in the fact that they are about to close the bridge down completely to repair it, and you have a situation where a WalMart can survive based on it being a destination, but a smaller retailer or restaurant may not be able to survive. A mom & pop place is doomed to fail until the roads are repaired and Walmart drives up traffic counts.

This center will lease, and over time the tenants will get better and better...but until the Walmart opens, the traffic counts skyrocket, and the bridge is repaired this location is not really that desirable for anyone other than a large destination retailer like Walmart.....Your low occupancy rate argument does not take any of this into consideration. You are just cherry picking the low hanging fruit and using it as proof that you right.

The reality is that this center will fill up, it will be profitable. I'd love to own it. Its short term success will be low until all of the things that retail/restaurants look for align...Ainbinder is not nearly as short sighted as you...they see the big picture and that picture is full of dollar signs!

I agree with NICHE - Memorial will overtake WestU. West U is nice, but the actual cost per residence is lower than the memorial villages due to the smaller lots. Memorial, I believe, will soon become the most expensive per square foot...the bigger lots, get you bigger houses, which get you bigger price tags...generally speaking.

You really think that the $6 mil had anything to do with Walmart hiring a bunch of minimum wage workers? At least there is a reasonable argument to be made that the stimulus spending actually did create jobs that would not have been created without it. Walmart would have built that store even if the City imposed a special $6 mil Walmart development tax.

You have now solidified every perception I had of you.

Walmart's minimum wage is better than Obama's nothing.