Gooch

I understand the precept of free property use. And agree with it, mostly. Many say... "It's their property they can do what they want, neighbors be darned." when it comes to building size and style. Yet we wouldn't apply that logic to many other things. In any confined urban environment, we are limited by courtsey and consideration of our surroundings. If the neighbors blasted music all night, for example. We wouldn't say, "It's their property they can do whatever they want with it, neighbors be darned." That would be considered an intrusive nuisance.

If a building is so large, and so close to it's neighbors it can be an intrusive nuisance to the neighbors. I'm sure we could come up with some examples. Especially in the Heights. Why do we expect no consideration on part of the builder? I think the fundamental question is: At what point does a neighboring structure become an intrusive nuisance to it's surroundings?

Why is it so hard to let other folks build their dream home? Let me ask you this, would you like for other folks to tell you how to live your life?

Why do they have no obligation to 'fit in'. What if the people already there are living in their dream house? And that dream doesn't include a McMansion next door? Does their dream house not count?

I dont' *think* it's a min lot size issue. I believe the house was recently remodeled.

It sounds like you don't now what you want, or where you will be. (Note: that's just the best interpretation I can make based on a forum post). It's going to be almost impossible for anyone to tell you if you will be happy with a property if you're desires are not nailed down very specifically. That may be a reason you are having a hard time choosing a location.

Given that your future may include a relocation in the near-term, and doubts about the type of property you desire, I'd be hesitant to purchase an illequid asset like real estate. Too many bad possible outcomes from not being able to sell at the right time, recovery of your sunk expenses as Niche pointed out.

Renting out isn't as easy as it sounds. After renting out a property, you will think that landlords are the most underpaid people on earth. It really is a lot of effort for little or no money. Remember that leases go both ways. You may have a pain-in-the-rear tennent that calls at 3am once a week to complain about some minor problem and pays late. But, you're stuck with them for the balance of the lease. You can pay someone to manage these things, but it isn't cheap - for good cause. If your agent doesn't stay on top of things... you'll have to deal with revolving lesees that don't stay past the mininum on the lease. You have to be float the unoccupied time between tennents. One thing Niche didn't mention is make-ready costs, between tennents. These can be significant as well. Figure at least painting and new carpet each time; if you're lucky.

My advice: know the lifestyle you are going to be living, then select your housing appropriately. There is nothing wrong with renting. It isn't necessarily 'throwing money away'. The first two years a mortgage is mostly interest anyway. You'll likely find that rent isnt' much more than taxes and interest for those first two years. You can give it away to the bank and the taxman; or the landlord. What's the difference?

I've given up buying produce there. It's a waste of time trying to pick out decent pieces, and money, because it's usually gone bad before I get a change to eat it. I don't care for the green bananas that curuiously are rotten in 2 days - either. Even the Fiesta on 14th has better produce. Noticed the same on organic milk, too. Always out. Almost no shelf space devoted to it and apparently no restocking until the overnight hours.

Money well spent. Not something I often get to say about METRO! The lights are very effective. I wish they used them at more intersections. As pointed out the visual clutter downtown is an issue. I always get nervous when coming to an intersection without a signal in dense areas; wondering "did I miss it?" or "is it not there". They are effective at keeping cars out of cross walks, too. Stop lines seem to be ignored completely. These lights are hard to ignore.

If George Clinton find the funk in P-Brown, then His Funkiness really is supernatural.

Man, I was scared he was going sing...

It just seems like a lot of money

Fun with numbers...

$1.46 Billion dollars / 20 miles = $73,000,000 per mile; or $13,826 per linear foot.

If we assume a $1 bill is 6" long, and 0.0043-inches thick*, and we stacked the $13,836 dollars required for each foot, it would be two piles end-to-end, 29.73 inches tall each.

The cost could stack a pile of dollars just short 30-inches tall for the entire 20-mile length of the line.

If we spread the $13,836 dollars, side by side, and in two columns we'd get a width of (13,836/2)(2-5/8")(1'/12")=1,513 feet wide. About the width of the Katy freeway corridor IIRC. Roughly, it could pave (poorly!) the Katy freeway in singles from 610 past Highway 6.

*source for $1 dimensions here...

Really?? I recall many occasions where thousands turned out to protest the Iraq War... if you were watching Fox News you probably didn't hear about it...

Let's keep it local. I can't think of one war protest in Houston that brought out 3,500 people. Did I forget or miss one? (quite possible!)

I personally thought these teabagging events were stupid b/c most of these people never said a word when Bush was spending and spending. They were protesting taxes when 95% of Americans are getting tax cuts. These events were mostly just conservatives angry that Obama is President.

Just an observation. All we've heard for the last 8-years was how unpopular Bush was. Yet, his unpopularity never motivated people to turn out to protest on any notable scale.

Now we keep hearing how popular Obama is. Yet, people are motivated to take to the streets and protest his actions.

Something does not add up.

Perhaps Obama won the election, but isn't as popular today as when elected. His mandate is rapidly eroding. Reminds me of Bush. Won the election. Lost his conservative mandate. Then he abandoned it. And went on to be very unpopular with both conservatives and liberals.

Truthfully, if people wanted to protest any group, it should be congress. But the president is (enivetably) a lightening rod for the public's discontent.

What is the swayback building? (Pic under the bull). Nice photos!

While I would agree that supporting responsible government is always a good cause, I am still a bit confused as to what trigger this outrage. Looking at this year's budget versus last year's, the increase was tiny.

Could be the projected baseline defcits...

Clearly the future is going to include some mix of higher taxation, reduced spending, inflation to monitize the relative effects of the national debt, or default by the government on its bonds. None are easy options...

If you're so anti-democracy but very much pro republic, then the only option is to make Obama a dictator and suspend free elections (we can't make him king because a republic does not have a king so dictator is the only non democratic option). How does that sound? Don't like the idea of Obama having supreme power indefinitely?

Do you now see the problem with not having democracy?

Jax, I missed your edit to your post. I'm sorry, I don't understand why a republic equals making Obama (or any president) an omnipotent dictator. Could you explain that?

My working definition of democracy is each has an equal vote on enacting law and simple majority wins. We don't have voting rights on laws in the US. True, we democratically-elect our representatives and ONLY congressional representatives. But that's our only voting right. We have no governing power whatsoever. The populace of this nation does not vote to enact laws, ratify treaties, etc. Only Congress does that. They do the voting. Name a single Federal law the public have had the ability to vote for/against. Not even the president is elected by a vote of the population. We vote for representatives to the Electoral College.

In Constitutional construction terms, the founding fathers eschewed direct voting power because of the distrust of equal-voting democracy by many of the members. If a majority of the nation were misled, irrational, or irresponsible, then Congress would vote in opposition to the people's will. Congressional members are not bound by any law, entaglement, or obligation to vote in accordance with the majority whims of the population they were elected by. They frequently don't! Similarly, the Electoral College is not bound to elect a president accorance with the population. That is a safety-measure to prevent an irrational populace from electing themselves into tyranny.

Given the steps taken to differentiate our government from Democracy; and the key role explaination of that differentiaton in the Federalist Papers had in ratification, I don't see how the term can apply. Describing our system of representative government as a republic is etymologically simplest. I'd love to read a historic counter-point to the Federalist Papers suggesting that Congress' intentions with the Constitution was to establish a democracy. Well, when I'm done with Tocqueville...

This is what I found about Toqueville's book Democracy in America.

The primary focus of Democracy in America is an analysis of why republican representative democracy has succeeded in the United States while failing in so many other places. He seeks to apply the functional aspects of democracy in America to what he sees as the failings of democracy in his native France.

Do you have that source? I'm interested in reading some analysis when I'm done. I dont' agree with it at this point, but I'm not done yet. It's tough reading. ;-D

Obama isn't talking about raising taxes back to historical levels. He's talking about raising them to the 1990s Clinton level. Well, you know what, most rich folks would love to return to the 90s. Rich people were RICHER back then. The country was healthier back then. ... Look, paying a lower tax rate sounds great to most people. But it doesn't sound great if it means your investments have eroded

I'm not sure I understand tha causal relationship between higher taxes and increased wealth. Could you explain?

I'd have to do some math, but I believe that if we simply taxed income of ALL kinds of income at the same rates, and eliminated most, if not all of the deductions, the tax rates could be reduced somewhat dramatically.

We do agree that the periphery of income gets the biggest breaks. But consider that for most of the working class in this country - their source of wealth is their salary. For the truly (non-working) rich, their source of wealth are their assets - they have an income that only meets their expenses. Raising top marginal rates on income hurts those that earn their wealth from their salary -the working wealthy. That's the Obama plan -raise top marginal rates. The affluent will continue to pay tax only on the (minimized) amount of income they derive from their assets. It doesn't level things out at all. But on the surface it sounds like it does!

To effeciently recover funds from the truly wealthy, you'd have to go to a federal tax on wealth - not income - a property tax at the national level that included all assest classes including stock, bonds, real estate, and cash... such a tax would cause money to flee our shores with astonishing speed. The there'd be no rich people left to tax. (A nice closed-loop paradox)

Long term capital gains are taxed differently as an incentive for investment. The data I've looked at is mixed on the success of that. I will say that if you are investing for a profit of only 5-10% per annum, the differential between 15% tax of that profit and a 36% can be huge to a small investor who has already reached the top marginal rates. (example a household making $250k/year) The LTCG tax rate lowers the entry bar for small investors - just like lower marginal income rate helps those of lower income. It helps the big money guys and the small money guys. That's easy to forget. Obama has proposed LTCG repeal.

Back to paising or bashing Obama! ;D

I wonder if you consider so many deductions allowing the wealthy to pay less tax as a percentage is unfair to the lower income individuals?

At the risk of derailing this thread...I'll answer since you asked. I don't see it as a deduction problem as much as an income source problem. Our tax system is skewed against income earned from salaries. Warren Buffet has said he pays less tax margin than his secretary. That's likely true. His income stems from investment returns at the long-term capital gains rate (15%) as opposed to salary marginal rates which range 15-36%. In my case as well, my income comes from salary. I qualify for none of the deductions you mention. I'd also point out that EIC credits are not for the wealthy. And IRA (401k too) is only a delay in taxation. You pay the taxes on withdrawl.

One must also be careful not to confuse wealth with income. I've seen individuals worth millions in assets that only would only draw down $100k/year. Since there is no 'wealth' tax on property (at the federal level, until one dies), that multi-millionaire would pay the same taxes as a middle-income family. Your article does infact work from income, but many articles I've read along those lines do not; leaving the impression that the wealthy are cheating the system.

All of the poor (and some of the rich) are treated very favorably by our system. They pay little or nothing. The upper-end of the middle class pays a lot for that favorable treatment. Monthly, my income taxes, SSA, and FICA are more than I pay for rent, food, and utilities combined. I spend more on federal taxes than I spend on my own cost-of-living. Who is paying their 'fair' share? And no, I'm not what Obama would consider 'rich'.

I am quite sure that you have bigger issues with the president than an imagined hatred of the wealthy. At least I would hope so.

We already tax on net income. Google 'tax deductions'.

Considering that the Obamas are now members of the group he believes should pay those higher taxes, I do not see his stance as envy.

I do not see it as Obama's personal envy. I don't give two squirts what his personal feelings are/aren't. It's his pandering to the envy and hatred for the rich that much of the population has. That's what I have a problem with. I'm from Louisiana. I've seen a lot of populist governors come-and-go. And the state's poorer for it.

therefore should pay their fair share.

Define fair. (It's a rhetorical question)

There are far too many rational and logical reasons for progressive tax policies to feel the need to resort to 'envy' as a justification.

Absolutely. 90% of the population couldn't afford a 'flat-tax' at the current revenue levels. But where do you draw the line? Why not try another way. Isn't this administration all about change? Here's an idea. It would minimize the minimize the number of overly rich, stimulate the economy by putting money held by the wealthy into circulation, and it's automatically progressive. Tax people on their net income, just like we do on businesses. Instead of the gross. At the end of the year the poor have nothing left = no tax. The high-income earners enjoy the fruits of their success by spending it - stimulating the economy - or pay massive taxes if they hold onto it out of excessive greed.

Intersting, perhaps. Correct? Not by a long shot. The US tax system has been in effect for a century. The form of progressive taxation was implemented a century ago. Obama has not changed anything, and has not proposed changes. He has merely proposed letting the Bush tx cuts expire without making them permanent. To ascribe 100 years of US tax policy to Obama's envy is absolute ridiculousness, and the kind of stretch that has garnered Obama's opponents such derision.

If someone pays more, it's an increase. The only sunset provision I can think of ever recall expiring is the assault weapons ban. By your logic we could revert back to the >90% max top marginal rates of mid-50's and it wouldn't be an increase. That would just be going back and removing the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan tax cuts.

As an example of his use of envy, I'll supply the following exerpt from Obama's press conference 24 MAR 09 in reference to reducing the deduction for charitable contribution, emphasis mine:

It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.

...

They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years.

It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

Any politician with a populist platform will by nature play to economic envy. Its the only way it works.

The terms democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

In terms of the construction of The Constitution they certainly are. Prevailing thought at the time of the Constitution's ratification was a fear that the US would be a democracy. In fact, great pains were taken in crafting the Constitution to ensure that public passions exercised by a "tyranny of the majority" did not capture the government. Their hope was the US would never evolve into a 'majority rule' government. They envisioned many factions. So many that no single faction could dominate. In arguing for ratification Hamilton/Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. ... In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

The founding fathers also feared that a democratic government would lack stability. Take for example Federalist Paper No. 49.

In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion.

The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society.

Marksmu said:

We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy.

Intersting.Though not one of the founding fathers, Tocqueville described how how the American republic's devolution into democracy saying...

Moreover, democracy not only lacks that soundness of judgment which is necessary to select men really deserving of their confidence, but often have not the desire or the inclination to find them out. It cannot be denied that democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy in the human heart; not so much because they afford to everyone the means of rising to the same level with others as because those means perpetually disappoint the persons who employ them. Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy.

To bring this back to topic; Tocqueville's quote above sounds a lot like the the Obama presidency. He's justified taxing the rich based on envy. And applied that envy to villify corporate execs. I'm in the middle of reading Tocqueville. How he envisions the end of American government/society/culture is pretty creepy because it has many analogs to the current adminsitration's policies. Analogs existed when he wrote it too! I don't think it's the end of the world, were diving off a cliff of socialism. But it is discomforting.

I'm also not comfortable with the justification of the president for a mandate because "I won". He seems very determined to get a pound of flesh because he doesn't like the way the previous administration ran over its opposition. I understand that feelings. But two wrongs don't make a right. I thought he was going to be above that sort of revenge-based politics.

Ya, TCJ south of 11th is eskeery.

If I'm doing that route I go West on 11th to Ella. Go north on Ella to 12th. Take 12th across Hempstead. At the 610-loop there's a marked bike lane. Follow it to little jog to the north. Stay on the bike lane. It crosses the loop at an underpass then meets back with 12th on the other side. Continue west to N. Post Oak Road. Take the bike lane south crossing I-10. You have to take a right on ??? street. I can't remember the name, but there's a bike route sign, and the bike lane ends. Then take an immediate left (south) on N Post Oak Lane. Stay on there until Woodway. Take a Left onto the bike path on the south side of Woodway. Head eastbound on the bike path, cross at I610 and stay on the bike path until you reach the park.

Sounds more complicated than it is. Traffic isn't too bad on this route. The only two notable parts are 11th to Ella's pretty narrow but it's a short distance. Crossing Woodway can be tough, but there's a traffic signal there. It's the least traffic-y way I know to do it without going back to Heights and heading south. That's not a bad option either.

I assume you've seen this map http://www.publicworks.houstontx.gov/bikew...map_network.pdf?

its funny how we all respond on here (for the most part wanting it) and how they respond on the Chron (not wanting it). Its hard for the regular Houstonian to understand the value of this type of development.

I think a lot of folks on here are developers, afficionados of architecture, construction folks, etc. Audience is important.

I once heard the president of a large engineering firm say he'd never put an engineer in charge of bidding turn-key jobs. His reasoning was that engineers want to build things. Because of that, they are sometimes blinded by that desire and it influences how they evaluate the economics and viability of the project. I think developers do that too. Like engineers they want to build things that make their fellow developer friends and associates go "ohh, you worked on that!?" or "ohh, look how neat that is". It's only natural.

At the end of the day, no matter how cool it is... if the market demand isn't there it won't end well. And the mass market a project this size requires isn't fellow developers. That mass-market includes most a LOT of those Chron readers.

Well... the smokers to help keep Social Security solvent by dying off early. I hear it prevents alzheimers as well...

So exactly what part of going before the public to profess hatred for someone do you have a problem with?

Note: I'm not defending Limbaugh.

Please don't skewer me for this. I'm an engineer, not an archictect or urban planner. But, there's something I've never understood. Why does the location of a parking lot (front to back) affect one's ability to walk down the street? I mean, are people so dumb that they can't walk along the sidewalk between a parking lot and a street without getting hit by cars? I walk through parking lots, through parking garages, along streets without sidewalks all the time. Heck, I ride my bike IN the street all the time. What side of the building a parking lot was on has never been a factor in whether I walk or not. I decide to walk (or not) based on how far it is and what I've got to carry.

Washington Ave has too much retail space and bars to be supported only by the population within walking distance. Lots more is planned. Making it hard for cusumers outside of the immediate area to drive and park is like saying we don't want those customers. Someone's got to support the oversaturation of bars and restaurants.