Gooch

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.

They had some some protesters out yesterday. KTRK (Ch.13) covered it. Heres a link http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=6734092. As noted above by tmariar it is indeed the Granberry property that's endangered.

Noticed these signs have sprouted up across from the propose renovations in the last couple of weeks. Anyone know if they are in response to anything specific, or just pre-emptive?

Just tacky, or getting desperate? Shoulda put up the phone number too...

I think I saw someone walking around inside just before they blew it up! Look reaaaallllly close! Just kiddin!

Nice comments Editor. I couldn't agree more it IS about content - always. Some smaller market papers struggle to find newsworth stories. I dont' think that would be a problem in a city the size of HOUTX. But it seems the Chron struggles to do so. On of the things the BR Advocate did was take on a long-term issue and cover it in the Sunday edition. That covered the back pages and left the front sections open until the last minute. A few years ago they did an indepth focus on the brain-drain in Louisiana. Each week's Sunday edition devoted an aweful lot of column inches to the story. This feature went on for several months, maybe a year even? It placed an important community issue into the paper. Made it worth taking the time to read, even if it wasn't immediately newsworthy. Did you read their website before it became "2theadvocate"? It was pretty good back then. Nothing fancy, just a down-the-line list of the same articles included in the print edition. That was pretty good. It's too bloated now. Try going to straight to the "NEWS" page? Never realized what a good job that paper does until I moved here! HA!

That's an excellent analogy! But don't forget carmakers also built the Yugo.

I'm not old. I'm not even middle aged. I read print when I lived in Baton Rouge. I read print when I lived in New Orleans. I read print when I travel to Austin. I much prefer to read an actual put-it-in-my-hands so I can pick it up later and not tied to a computer screen print paper. I rarely buy the Chronicle. Printing is not why the Chronicle is falling on hard times. Printed or online, it just a crappy newspaper. They try so hard to be a 'national' paper like the NYTimes, WSJ, or Washington Post. They do a poor job of that. Not enough bureaus, correspondants or stringers.. They just pull AP stories you can read in any other paper. They devote enough space to the national issues that they fail at being a local paper too. Not enough space to cover something that isn't already covered by TV. They provide no more, often less, depth than TV. Depth is the advantage a newspaper has. As best as I can figure, they go to print about 6pm. Meaning if something happens after 6pm on Monday, it doesn't show up in the paper until WEDNESDAY! By that time its' already out of the news cycle. TV's had 4-cracks at it (Mon10p, Tues6A, Tues6P, Tues10p). Yes, print is slow, but it's ridiculous. The BR Advocate for example, doesn't go to press until around midnight (sometimes later). So, in the morning when you get your *printed* paper the news is still fresh, and competitive in timeliness with TV. And most of the Sunday Chronicle is published on Friday night. Hard to take any newspaper seriously that doesn't publish a real Sunday paper. How can you buy a "Sunday" paper on Saturday?

Noticed today that the Chron is getting noticebly smaller. Today the Business and City&State sections were combined. Might as well be. Last time I picked up a copy the Business was 4 pages (singlefold). I'm also noticing fewer and fewer local stories. Still lots of pulled AP stories, as always. How long before it's gone?

Remember it vividly. Somewhat deserved, too. The cry from the left was "I support the troops, but not the war." Which is akin to saying "I hope we lose the battle but no one gets killed." Of course in war, loss = death. That's not supportive of the troops, that was a cop-out. That's what made their stance un-american. Political opposition is perfectly American, and patriotic. We don't have to all agree- it's better if we don't. But stand up, say it directly, don't hide behind bromides.To bring the thread full circle... not that different than what Rush said. He's said many times "I support the President, but not his policies." mocking the liberal troop-support mantra!

I don't think you could confuse her with Chau Nguyen or Phil Archer! HA!

Bush was the right's Jimmy Carter. Like Carter, his heart and convictions were in the right place. But, the execution was misled and poor overall. A bad place to be when in the executive branch. That's the unfortunate part of any presidency. You become more responsible for things, yet you cede much control to the people that work for you. It's a cruel irony that Obama has yet to face. All presidents do eventually. Clinton handled that dichotomoy very, very well and with much grace. As did Reagan.

That's a great point. If people would spend their political motivations on increasing charitable donations we could do a lot of good in the private sector. Examples could include The Lance Armstrong Foundation, The Shriner's Hospital system, St.Jude's Medical center, MDA, pop-up off the top of my head. Why not expand those efforts instead of raising taxes? Instead of a culture of confiscation why not try to build a culture of donation? Instead, we are trying to force it by the tax law - at the point of a gun if you will. That is no different that robbery. Even if one believes that government is the right way to accomplish charity, that can be done too without penalizing anyone. I've never understood the wealthy that say taxes should be higher. What are they waiting for? The treasury will take a check. They acutally have instructions on how to make a donation on their website. There are many ways to make the world a better place without reliance on government. If only we had some way to incentivize donations. Oh wait we do, it's called itemized tax deductions on donations. Surprisingly (or not) the Obama adminstration is proposing to eliminate this. A mistake in my opinion.

We are in violent agreement. I think what we are getting at is it seems wealth hasn't been built upon tangible goods. For the past two generations wealth was created via labor, goods, manufacture. Producing things that were merchantable. Physical stuff of an enumerable value. The growth of the 'finance' industry in last 30 years has been dramatic. It was based on making money off of other people, who were making money off of other people, who were earning money by creating the tangible labor and goods. I don't have a lot of grief about that sector collapsing. I wish we'd let it go away, rather than continue to prop it up via tax monies extrated (once again) from those creating the tangible value. The producers of this country are getting soaked by the looters.

Katie, with all due respect, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never said there was anything wrong with building one's own success from wherever they started from. Nor am I belittling anyone's (modern) accomplishments. But I do recognize that I never feared a shortage of food. I never had to stitch my own cuts up with a needle-and-thread. Most of the things I fear in this economic crisis aren't life endangering. That's exactly what I mean about forgotten about how to be poor. There is no shame (or honor) in poverty. The shame is in not working hard; the honor in doing whatever it takes to succeed. People seem to have forgotten that poverty isn't a life sentance. It CAN be temporary. I'm not sure I resolve these two (I'm probably missing something)

I'm a honkey and understand what Crunch is saying. I put myself through school w/o benefit of student loans or help from my parents. Yes, it was hard. But not near as hard as my parents and grandparents had it trying to lift themselves from poverty. Heck, my they didn't have electricity until my father was a teenager. I think most Americans have forgotten how to be "poor". I assume you've seen Geithner's resume?

I thought this thread was going to be about weed... In that case L.A. probably is #1.

Cutting taxes is HOW you stimulate the economy. I do not get to spend over 63 cents of every dollar I earn. It's taxed away. I'd spend more if I had it. But I don't. So only $0.37 of every dollar I earn stimulates the economy. How is that effective? How is taking more of my money through higher taxes going to effectively stimulate the economy? Educate me, because I don't understand. What's the difference if government spends that 63 cents? If the people get to spend their own money; it is (or can be) empowering to them. If the government spends it; it is empowering to the government. Empowering people through self-determination is what Conservatitism is. The sad part is the administration indirectly admits higher taxes cause money to flee the market! Part of the Obama omnibus spending bill is to go after and prevent US companies from relocating overseas. Why are they fleeing the US to go overseas? To avoid taxes! Erecting walls to keep money within the US so it can be soaked off by the govenment will work as well as the Iron Curtain did for keeping people not seeking freedom in Eastern Europe. Total misconception. It is NOT resistance to change. Conservatives want serious change. Just not the change that this administration wants. I'd like to see Democrats come up with a solution that doesn't involve higher taxes or pork-barrel spending.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1236044190...ss_opinion_main The WSJ called the administration out on the issue (and others) today in a scathing op-ed. The whole thing's silly. If the Obama administration doesn't think he's right they just simply shouldn't acknowledge him and go about their business. It's a total red herring the administration is using to distract from a substantive debate about it's policies ...

I see cars in the Heights bike lane all the time. No surpise...

The same folks that are buying the ones on Heights 10-feet from the railroad track?

CenterPoint has been out reading meters enmasse the last week or so during the day.

I rode almost the same route the previous weekend! I took Barker Cypress to the Addicks dam and rode on that all the way to Clay. It's gravel, but great on a CX or MTB. I took Clay to 43rd to White Oak Bayou trail, then down to 11th/12th and back into Hieghts. There's some good (and not so good) routes on mapmyride.com as well. BikeRouteToaster.com can be useful, too, especially if you use GPS.

I give drivers the benefit of the doubt. Most drivers don't know how to handle the interaction. I didn't before I until I started cycling. It's real simple. Treat the cyclist just like a car. If drivers have the right of way, take it! Just like you would a car. There's nothing worse as a cyclist when someone is "waiting" to "be nice." The drivers mean well. But as a cyclist you have to ride with the assumption that person isn't paying attention. Numerous times someone has stopped to "be nice" and let me go, then grow impatient as they misjudged my speed and pull out right in front of me. Many drivers have a hard time juding cyclists' speeds. And speeds vary alot between cyclists! Bikers have responsibilies too. The most important thing to do is be predictable. Its funny, people got stuck behind some slow driving car, they just pass it. Stuck in traffic, no big deal. But if a cyclist holds them up... lordy, that really ticks folks off. There's some psychology to that! Also, keep in mind that theres a new bill in the upcoming TX Legislative session. It mandades a 3-ft passing distance from motor vehicles. The text of the bill can be found HERE: http://files.statesurge.com/file/840744. Let your reprentatives know how ya' feel, however ya' feel!

First, it's illegal in Texas. State law. Though it's not obvious, it is far more dangerous to the rider to be on the sidewalk. Think about cruising along, and you are biking on the sidewalk. A car approaches to make a right turn. Are they going to be looking for a bicycle on the sidewalk? No. It's a great way to get mowed down, unless the cyclist stops to look over their shoulder at every intersection. Then the biker isn't looking where he's going. It's dangerous to pedestrians too. A serious biker will maintaintain 20+ mph. That doesn't belong on a sidewalk with pedestrians. No ability to pass because the sidewalks in most places are too narrow to perform that maneuver safely. Not to mention that most sidewalks are full of buckles that will taco a wheel in an instant. Sadly, most of the bike lanes in HOUTX aren't much better! To some degree this is just being defensive. A biker at an intersection is a sitting duck! If cross traffic is clear, GO! Bad idea to hang around. Too many bad things can happen. Drivers run red lights. People turn right after checking left-side cross traffic, but not to their right (where a biker will be). If the biker is in line behind a car, approaching drivers will see the car, but not the biker and drive right into them. Common accident scenario. If a biker is first in line and stops for cross traffic, he should stop IN FRONT of the stop line, in front of where a driver would normally stop. Hopefully, they will be stopping whether they see the biker or not. Yeah, that does make the crossing traffic nervous sometimes when they roll up close. Trust me, cars make cyclers far more nervous! The car always wins.