Marksmu

Please...

Every hipster knows that chicken eggs are soooo 2007! I mean, they're probably doing that in Midtown by now! Every blue blooded Heights resident knows that you should be fighting city hall for the right to raise ducks. Have you not seen the price of organic duck eggs at Central Market? You must not be in the right book of the month discussion group. I suggest you tender your resignation and search for one that's slightly ahead of the curve.

Next thing you'll say is that you want to raise pigmy goats...sheesh. (hint, goats out, micro donkeys in)

While I recognize the sarcasm - apparently there is nothing preventing people from having Geese....there is a house at nicholson and 12th - that keeps two geese....they are extremely loud and honk at every single person that passes by on the sidewalk, and about half the people that pass by on the hike and bike trail. If I were that houses neighbors, I would go crazy - those birds are LOUD.

Yup - I'm all for it as well...United bailed on Houston when they moved to Chicago after the merger....not mention that United is pretty much the worst airline I have ever flown....I always end up having to fly off peak and at weird times, and whenever the flight is not completely full - they cancel it....I cant tell you how many times they have cancelled a flight I needed to make.

I see no reason that Houston should have any loyalty at all to United.

Friday night quick dinner out at Collinas on 19th around 5:30 I believe proved the point I have been trying to make about Children...the restaurant was full, only 1 table available when we got there, and over 80% of the restaurant was families with young children eating out. By catering too, or at least tolerating children at that early hour the place was able to do much much more business than if it had just sat back and waited for the adult dinner crowd to show up and eat later....

Granted Collina's is not some fancy restaurant - but I think families with children can help places do quite a bit of early business it would not otherwise do.

Minor league day games with $5-$15 tix in an air-conditioned stadium would sell, imho. What about you?

The Astros play in an air-conditioned stadium and cant even sell out a game with $1 tickets. Houston is a bandwagon city...if you want fans you have to be good....I think football is about the only exception to this rule.

Compare what you have cited to the 1,100+ apartment units in the Greater Heights area over the last decade. And I have no idea how many new townhomes have been developed over that period of time, but clearly townhomes account for added housing units on net, whereas single-family homes have only replaced other single-family homes.

You cannot sincerely believe that the majority of Heights residents are like yourself or will become like yourself in any reasonable time horizon. Spatial constraints and municipal ordinances will forbid it.

My whole point in this conversation has been, not that children make up a majority or ever will in the Heights....its not even that there are more children in the area than there were before I moved here in 2007....I accept the fact that lower income families have more children in smaller homes....My point, regardless of whether or not I have state it clearly, is that as less affluent residents move out of single family homes, many of those homes are torn down, and replaced with new, significantly larger more expensive homes, many of which now are being sold to more affluent people with children, or young professionals many of whom are planning to have children. The quantity of affluent people with disposable income, who have children is increasing, even though the net quantity of children is decreasing.

Most of the restaurants opening up around the Heights are not catering towards the less affluent apartment dwellers, or those on fixed income...the restaurants are targeting those people with disposable income...the menu prices make that clear...an increasing percentage of those with disposable income are starting to have children, thus a restaurant would be foolish not to make trivial accommodations to cater to those families with kids. I do not argue there are still far more affluent people who don't have kids than there are those who do, but I am arguing that since 2007 the percentage of affluent residents who have kids has increased considerably....These nicer restaurants are drawing from a relatively small area, of which only some can even afford to come to your place...to alienate 15 to 20% of your already small customer base because they have children would be foolish.

You're telling me, then, that you spend at least as much money eating out with children than you do without children? Sit-down meals typically entail a larger tip, alcoholic beverages, multiple courses, and will more frequently be in a finer establishment.

No, I cant say that. We are usually in more of a hurry when we are eating with the kids....but I do not order any less expensive meals, or drinks, and I am cognizant of the fact that a child is an inconvenience so even though my child can easily eat off my plate and we can all be full, I still always order a meal for her as well...worst case I take more food home and we eat it tomorrow...I do that more as a thank you to the restaurant for offering a children's menu than anything else.

I generally do not get appetizers and desert when with the kiddo, and I do with the wife...but again its all about the speed issue...when I eat out with my child, we are there for a max of 35-40 minutes....we order quickly and eat fast...when I eat out without the kid, even though my tab is higher, I stay longer 2-3x longer....I do not know what makes the restaurant more money....my in/out and turning the table, or a table that stays 3x longer and spends more than I do...I would suspect the restaurant and the waiter would prefer to flip the table more frequently.

The growth trend is to new apartments, condos, and townhomes on the peripheries...which from here on out is pretty much everwhere that the Heights preservation ordinances don't apply. Young, educated, early-career professionals (mostly singles and DINKs) may not do much for Stella Sola or Shade, but don't tell me that they aren't a core demographic for a huge number of Heights restaurants and bars. As for the fixed number of single-family homes in the Heights proper, its seems like there's merely a transition from one already-affluent demographic to another affluent demographic; I fail to see where that's adding quite the same value as does adding completely new housing units.

I agree with you on the outskirts, townhomes and condos, but not for the fixed number of single family homes...the trend there, is for an older or far more economically disadvantaged resident to move out, and for the homes to be replaced with a nice new $400-$600,000 home. The historic ordinance has curtailed that significantly within its boundaries, but there is still an enormous section of property from Shepherd to Ashland, and in various places in between that are not included in the historic ordinance.

Just in the 2 blocks from Waverly at 11th to Nicholson and 13th and back down Waverly there have been 7 new builds started in the last few months, and 3 new builds completed since I moved into that area in 2007....the historic ordinance certainly curtailed the influx of more affluent residents within its boundaries, but it has created a market outside of its boundaries but still within the Heights that is doing quite well. A quick search for lots or homes on HAR from Shepherd to Studemont and 11th to 20th with a min lotsize of 6000sq ft (what most of the larger builders are looking for) and a max price of $300,000 shows only 5 listings, one on Yale, which should really be more commercial and 2 of them must be purchased together...Sullivan builders at 15th and Ashland have a new section that they are building that is huge, probably 20 or more homes and those homes are quite expensive as well....so within the fixed home community I think the trend outside of the historic ordinance area is certainly still to raze and rebuild, and those people doing that are not coming back with small bungalows...they are building large nice new homes in the $500-$800K range.

Little bit of a generalization there Marksmu.

I'd take Harvard, Travis, River Oaks, Timbergrove, Kolter, Love or half a dozen others over Spring Branch Elementary.

http://www.har.com/s...-101920114.html

Additionally, if your kid is say 1 years old it. It is really hard to say that the "good" public schools now will be the same ones 5,10,18 years from now. I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it.

I should have stated that more succinctly ...I would not consider a move to an area that did not go to either Frostwood elementary....OR Bunker Hill Elementary...there is no sense in making a lateral move to a more expensive home in an equal school district.

http://www.har.com/s...-101920104.html

http://www.har.com/s...-101920102.html

And I agree that its difficult to know what a school will look like several years from now - which is why we are not moving now....we love our house and our street...But my personal belief is that a school can only be as good as the parents who are behind the students pushing and encouraging them....if you have a large population of children whose parents are not involved in their education, for whatever reason, you will not have the same quality of a school as population of students whose parents are very involved.

EDIT: To link this back up with restaurants though - the increase in the home values generally mean an increase in a demographic that has both 1) more disposable income for restaurants, and 2) a stronger belief in a good education....so I think that both restaurants and schools are going to continue to get better here as the demographic changes to a more affluent one.

In all fairness, these anecdotes may tell a story that is ignored by the school enrollment data. Neither Marksmu's or HeightsYankee's kids are school-age. All of Marksmu's SMU buddies' kids aren't school-age. There may be a vastly disproportionate number of very young children in affluent households. (Not that it should matter that much to a restauranteur if kids of that age suppress dining out in those households, and if those households are just going to move away in another few years or exhaust their disposable income on needless private schooling.)

Or...it may be that these posters are all from basically the same subculture, interact only within that subculture, and are oblivious to the demographic impact of several large and medium-sized apartment complexes on the periphery of their neighborhoods and the fact that the "Greater Heights Area" is still extremely heterogeneous.

None of my SMU friends live in the Heights, in fact only a few even live in Houston - most got jobs in Dallas before graduation so they stayed - most of the friends we have here are from my time at UH in Law School - that said - my child does not suppress my patronage of these places, rather I just get my food to go. I order to go frequently from many places... probably 3 or 4 meals a week.. I have been to every single restaurant on this thread with the exception of happy all cafe...I just cant bring myself to order from there - it just looks terrible.

The disposable income we have, and that of many of our friends, enables us to eat out frequently...even with private school tuition, we can afford to eat out. We eat many meals out b/c both parents in our house work and there is not always enough time to cook and clean when we are already tired from work, and just want to enjoy our family time....Private school will not impact that at all...ya, its another $1200 or $1500/ month but we already pay that in day care, so its of no consequence....if we could not afford two kids without a lifestyle change we would not be having a second.

The only reason for the move is that I can have a hard asset in the form of a bigger house in a slightly better area for the same price that I would pay to send my kids to private school. I see no reason not to keep the money in an asset, rather than give it to a school....HISD schools can not compete with the Spring Branch ones and I have no loyalty to the Heights other than its been a good place to live the last several years.

Also were not oblivious to the apartments in the area, or the multitude of children living in them - one need only drive by them to realize how populated they are - but the restaurants that have been opening in the area generally are not trying to draw that demographic....they are pricing the food to attract the increasing demographic, not the decreasing one....I have seen many a run down rental torn to the ground to be replaced by a nice house...the trend in home building is toward the nicer more expensive homes in the $400-$600,000 price range....that is not changing despite the influence the apartments have on the area.

When we moved onto our block we were two young professionals just like the stats said we should be....There was one child on the block when we moved in back in early 2007. Since we moved we have had 1 child, and have another on the way, another house has had 2 children, and five other houses have 1 each...of the 22 houses on my street there was one with a child in 2007...now in 2011 there are 7/22 houses with kids.

We also have a rental house 3 blocks away and I got to know neighbors there when I was rehabbing it....that block had 2 houses with kids when we bought it in 2009 and it now has 6/20 houses with kids....My Cousin also lives up on 21st and his block had no houses with kids in 2008 and now has 8/21 with children.

I am not arguing that the Heights is majority Child occupied, or ever will be, but I do not think Census data necessarily bears out the true numbers...it is too slow and even though we just had a census in 2010, a-lot has changed since then. We have 9 friends who went to law school with us who moved to the heights, and only 1 of them has not had a child.....

The big question is will the couples with Children stay? Personally I guess it depends on what they are looking for....we probably will not stay. I will not put my child in HISD, so we will either stay and goto private school, or we will move to the Memorial area....That is a decision we have not made yet.

I think restaurants in the area are certainly wise to cater to families and I agree with both Yankee and S3MH - you dont have to have a playground to be kid friendly...a kids menu and a handful of high chairs is really all that is necessary....the parents should be able to handle the rest. Right now my girl is not good so we get our food to go, but I look forward to getting to eat out again soon. Especially at Liberty Kitchen.

This is why I still read HAIF. You never know when you'll read a gut busting funny comment like this one. A restaurant that doesn't cater to families will become a fad? Really? A quick glance at the 77008 zip code demographics would reveal that 75% of the households here have NO children. Let that sink in a bit. 75% of the homes in the Heights have no kids. Remember, with no kids, these people go out to eat more often (you admitted it yourself). Yet, you believe that restaurants that don't cater to the other 25% who don't eat out as often, are fads.

Brilliant.

Three things that I notice about new parents. First, they think everyone loves their sweet child (we don't). Second, they suddenly think everyone else has kids (we don't). Third, they think restaurant owners love families (as a former restaurant owner, I can unequivocally say they don't). And you wonder why singles and couples always complain about families in restaurants.

A few things I notice about people who dislike kids in restaurants 1) they are bitter and relatively unhappy people. 2) They generally don't have kids because nobody wants to be around them long enough to reproduce 3) They believe the world caters to them, 4) No matter what their income level they are snobs.

I also have to agree with the previous comment about the various groups, and I will generalize based upon what I see in the Heights, at the grocery store, on the jogging trail, and actually out at the various restaurants...but out of the people who reside in the Heights, the ones who can afford to go out to eat at places that are not just an ihop - Im talking about the segment not using the check cashing stores - those the service industry are trying to attract....they are generally one or more of the following: 1) young, 2) newlyweds, 3) new parents, 4) professionals....at least half the population still living in the Heights can not afford to eat at places like Stella Sola, Glass Wall, Liberty Kitchen, etc....Out of the remaining half of the residents who can, I would venture to say 20-30% already have kids, and another large segment of that population will eventually have kids.

So while your statistic may be technically correct - I don't put much weight behind it. The Heights is not Washington Avenue...I don't expect a restaurant on Washington to cater to, or in many cases even allow Children, but the Heights....if you have not noticed is trending towards younger working professionals, many of whom have started or are starting families...and that is not going to change no matter what the grouchy kid hating crowd says...

There are not many restaurants that can make it without serving children. That is a fact. If you chose to not serve them, you better be serving up the absolutely best of everything else - because you have alienated an enormous, if not the super majority, of all dining consumers.

if you really want to expose your children to alcohol early in life, cut to the chase and go hang out at Shiloh Club .

I never saw the point of shielding your kids from Alcohol...It is everywhere and they have to learn about it at some point....I have an 18 month old, and I have drink before dinner and a glass of wine with dinner - every night. We just call it daddy's juice.

While I am excited about the possibility of bringing my child to this restaurant, at this phase in her life its not a practical reality....I am conscious of her behavior around others and right now I am fully aware that 15 minutes at the table is all I can expect from her without a total break down..thus we do not currently eat out. Hopefully by the time she can actually talk we can work up to getting to eat out again - but I certainly welcome a restaurant that welcomes kids, as I hope to one day be able to have nice dinners out again...its about the only thing I miss about not having kids.

Haven't been to Liberty yet, but Beavers does a nice job of balancing a family friendly menu while having a good drink menu for the adults. Usually, by 9 pm, all the people with kids have gone home to fight bedtime wars, leaving the boozehounds free to roam. And it is just good business in the Heights. If you aren't a Glass Wall and cater too much to the barflies, you will be empty from 6-8. A few dishes for the little ones will bring in a ton of business before the adults hit the town.

S3MH is right on this one....restaurants in Houston, especially areas like the heights that are rapidly becoming very family oriented are doomed to be fads if they do not offer something for families....Even Cedar Creek is family friendly, and its mostly bar....I've said it a million times - if you don't want to dine around children then you need to eat only at very expensive restaurants, or late....families have as much a right to be there as people who don't have kids.

I did not know Liberty Kitchen was going to be family friendly....now that I know that, I am inclined to go much sooner, and hopefully more often, than I had planned....I was thinking I needed to line up a babysitter for pretty much all decent seafood places in Houston.

Liberty Kitchen is getting ready to open and so glad someone is finally using that freaking cute building behind it on 11th

http://houston.cultu...ium=socialmedia

I really cant wait for a place in the Heights with good seafood...the seafood options here are pretty slim, and even then not that great....I wonder what the price point for liberty kitchen is going to be...I am thinking $15-$22...I have not looked for a menu online, but that is just my guess....seafood is never cheap.

Unfortunately, I am serious. I suck at doing nothing.

You see, I didn't realize that all unemployment benefits would stop the moment I enrolled for community college accounting classes with the expectation that they might at some point make me marketable to employers again (which they didn't). And because I owned real estate in the form of a half-completed money-pit, which didn't produce income and was unsellable during the financial crisis, the very thing that actually created a need for food stamps also financially disqualified me from receiving them.

If only I had just sat around all day and drank beer for a year and a half, my life would've been soooo much easier.

Our government and its programs truly are brilliant! They say welfare is not intended to hold you down - but they discontinue it when you goto school....We have many employees who decline their pay raises because it would disqualify their welfare benefits and their kids chip program insurance.

I disagree. In spite of my parents best attempts, I never did jack **** back in school, and I turned out just....oh, well never mind.

Your idea of not doing jack ----- in school is likely VERY different than the NFISD kids idea of doing jack ---- in school. Your probably bothered to show up because your parents forced you too...and despite trying not to learn - you probably still did...when they even bother to show up to school they literally do nothing, and many are just distractions to those who are trying.

Standardized testing strikes again...

I have several friends who graduated from Forest Brook and Smiley and are successful in life as I hate to see this.....when the shift towards testing popped up in the school system it has become deadly...Humble ISD has atttracted alot of the alumni of NFISD who could've sent kids there and there isn't enough diversity to boost scores across the board.

If they close, will HISD absorb their facilities or they'll shift them to Kashmere?

But NFISD used to be predominately white at one time.....another district that has fallen victim of white flight inside the Beltway

The problem is not testing or the teachers - its the parents. If you do not have parents who continually reinforce education as important then most (not all) children will take the more fun path of least resistance and ignore school work. If the school passes children from grade to grade just to keep their funding, it all catches up with them when the standardized tests come each year.

I took these tests when I was in school - they are the easiest most pathetic tests ever created. If a child can not pass the test - he/she has no business at all moving on to the next grade....they are extremely basic.

Sadly we can move these poor kids from district to district interrupting their groups of friends and busing them all over the city and it will not make any difference at all if the parents do not stand up and start parenting. You can not fix the home life these kids have...if their parents are not going to force them to work hard and behave the school certainly is not going to be able to do so.

Every tree I have seen with an X on it all around Houston has been cut down less than a week later. If it has an X - its coming down soon.

And your anonymity justification is really just a website design criticism. Are you really saying that an organization that does not have a tab on its website that lists the board of directors entitles people to post the directors personal information on the internet? Well, take a look at this: http://www.hpra.org/. The Houston Property Rights Association. Probably the ying to RUDH's yang.

I have never heard of HPRA but their web site looks abandoned. There is no chance in the world I would ever give any money to an organization like that. The RUDH site does not look abandoned....more to the point the RUDH site is hiding what is most likely occurring from the public's eyes; that is the president of the organization is taking donations from unsuspecting citizens and using it to pay himself to file frivolous lawsuits against the city.

I feel sorry for the people donating...there should be a huge disclaimer on the donation page....the president of this "organization" is paying himself from your donations. If not for NICHE's diligent work we would not have known this.

This is just more and more creepy. Why don't you try calling it!

I run into RUDH people all the time. They regularly hang out \ shop\ walk\ eat\ drink in the heights and as it has been so un-elegantly pointed out they live there.

If you are curious who they are, look for the sign in the yard, the bumper sticker on their car, and the businesses listed on their website.

When I had read that a good chunk of River oaks asked google streetview to be excluded, I thought it was pretty snooty, but now I can appreciate how your info so quickly goes to the lowest common denominator and then attached to a 59 pages of discussion about you.

I don't know what the internet etiquette is on this kind of thing, but it just really strikes a dissonant chord to take it so personally. Especially from people so capable of making their points with other methods.

Any legitimate organization has all of the information necessary to the public easily accessible to prove its legitimacy....what we have here is an organization who claims to be raising money to stop a Walmart and actively soliciting donations without any member accountability.

For all we know the young attorney who is also the president could be pocketing all of the donations in exchange for his "fee" I think people would want to know that - but how donations are used is not spelled out.

Is RUDH paying its members for their service? That is a question that should be answered....RUDH could really just be a giant scam by a young attorney to get paid to do something he was going to do for free out of principal alone.....Since their site is terrible, and they hide all their information from the public - the type of information being distributed is all that non-members can use to gauge the legitimacy of the organization...suffice it to say that the organization is currently looking very illegitimate.

The phone number and PO box are not enough. It is important to know the real names of the leadership, and the address of the organization's offices. Since it does not have an office, it defaults to the residences of the leadership.

I agree - a PO box, an email address, and a phone number do not make a group legitimate...Without the names of the leadership people SHOULD dig into who is running it prior to donating to it, or joining it...it looks like a site built by a HS student for a school project...You, S3MH are the one offended by something that is not offensive.

I scoured that site and did not find a single name other than Ed, or something like that. That is insufficient. They hide behind an organization, and apparently they are so afraid of being known to the public that they make threats and try to force the admin of this site to take their info down...stinks to me!

You did not tell people how to communicate with RUDH. RUDH has a website, facebook page, email address and even have public meetings. If people want to communicate with RUDH, there are ample opportunities. What you did was tell people how to contact certain individuals who have been active with RUDH in one way or another at their personal residences. If you had a problem with Mayor Parker, would it be appropriate to go to her house? Has anyone who is against RUDH gone to Ainbinder's house? In a neighborhood that has had a recent wave of break in robberies, do you really think that it is appropriate for people to be knocking on doors of private residences to discuss whether someone's selection of a home to live makes them a hypocrite? What you are really trying to do is harrass and intimidate people who you do not agree with by putting their personal information on the internet.

And there is no anonymity for the people that are involved with RUDH. They get quoted individually in the news all the time and have even been on camera. But that does not mean that they are fair game to have their personal information posted and have their personal lives attacked. That is just dirty pool and internet trolling. And you know it.

And my point about "how would you know" was simply pointing out the obvious irony (or cowardice) of making childish criticisms about people's personal lives from behind the anonymity of an internet avatar. You will never personally know whether people who support RUDH would do the same to you because you will always be hiding behind your computer. Whether they are hypocrites or on the side of all things good and true, the people whose personal information you have published at least have the guts (admittedly more than I probably will ever have) to start an organization to take on very, very powerful interests in our community. You can rail all day on the internet about why you think a Walmart is just what West End residents need to boost their property values and how the Heights will be so much better with a Walmart nearby. But, going after people personally while hiding behind an internet avatar is totally out of line. Of course, you are not dumb and have obviously done this so you can make yourself the center of this discussion as it is clear that not much of substance was being said about the lawsuit. So, at least you have succeeded on that front.

A facebook page is not a legitimate form of contact information for any real communication of any kind. Going to their website shows a singe phone number and an email address that is of course anonymous. It looks to me like RUDH leaders are afraid to put their real names behind anything.

NICHE did nothing more than access public records and make them easier for others to see in order to point out the glaring hypocrisy that is RUDH. He invaded no privacy by doing so, and he made no threats against them. However, I'm willing to bet he would not have gone to any of that trouble if the names of the people responsible for RUDH were listed on the website like virtually every single legitimate entity in existence.

RUDH "leaders" are hiding behind the computer and a lawyer just like you claim NICHE is. If they were not then their names would be posted on the organizations website instead of everything being anonymous.

does that work with non-profits that (I would assume) will just go away once they have lost all possibility of stopping the walmart on Yale? as they have served absolutely no other purpose and they seem to not have any other causes they care about, you'd think they'd just dissolve when they've lost all they care about. what options within loser pays are given to go after members of a non-profit org that dissolves?

I'm guessing a judge could require that they post a bond prior to initiating the suit - in circumstances like this where it is more likely than not that the suit is entirely frivolous I would think that the Judge may require a bond to not get summarily dismissed. But I do not know and I am not going to spend any time looking for the answer.

Your claim about vacation was widely refuted back in August. After 31 months in office, Obama had taken 61 vacation days, compared to 180 days for Bush and 112 days for Reagan at the same point in their presidencies. http://www.cbsnews.c...n20093801.shtml

I know facts won't change some people's opinions, but anyway, I'm not sure what attacking Michelle and the president have to do with the Heights Walmart...

Because more than half of his vacations he stops off for some token meeting with someone so he can lay the dime on the taxpayers and its not "vacation" its official business.. Michelle Obama is even worse than he is...her "official" trip to Spain cost taxpayers a fortune.

What the Obamas and RUDH have in common is their dishonest hypocritical approach at getting their way. They both have no shame at all in saying one thing and doing another. RUDH does not want WalMart - all of their arguments and lawsuits are aimed at one goal stopping Walmart. Fortunately - a pathetic group like RUDH can't stop Walmart - but they can cost the taxpayers more money with a lawsuit.

Yes, Michelle Obama is SUCH a hypocrite, with her advocacy of healthy lifestyles yet fantastic physique.

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible. If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset. Admittedly the anchor tenant is an enormous part of the problem, but the fact that they have shown zero interest in neighborhood concerns is an even bigger problem.

All that being said, the Koehler St. house is absolutely hideous. It is also probably incredibly poorly built, and will become a maintenance nightmare for Mr. Urbano in a few years.

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down.

As to RUDH - they are anti Walmart snobs - they are not actually some group of taxpayers concerned about how our tax dollars are spent - they are anti-heights walmart snobs. They are pulling at any loose string they can to stop the Walmart. They dont care for Kroger much either so the Kroger will get some attention - but this whole thing would not ever have existed if it had been an HEB as they wanted.

Its much easier to just tell people how to live rather than do so yourself....this comes as no surprise to me. I find that most people who push an agenda do so for financial or political reasons, but seldom practice what they preach....just look at Al Gore, or Michelle Obama...its just too inconvenient to practice what you preach! If you can just force others to change then you don't have too!