samagon

I recently got a scooter, it still needs a bit of work to get it on the road, but once it is read for the road, I need a few things. insurance, inspection, registration (license plates), and a scooter (moped) endorsement on my license. the difference between a full on motorcycle endorsed license and moped endorsement is for moped you only need to take the written portion of the exam. I've just downloaded the Texas motorcycle operator handbook, I assume I should study the whole thing and be prepared for questions to come from anywhere, but has anyone else taken the motorcycle written test? How is it? Am I wasting my time studying? my other question, I am assuming they will be able to answer when I take the exam, but if I later want to get the full motorcycle endorsement, will I need to retake the written exam, or just provide that I have done the motorcycle safety course, or do the road portion of the exam? My thinking is, if I will have to go back and do the written exam, I may as well just do the motorcycle safety class and then take the exam once and get full motorcycle endorsement, cause who knows? I may want to move up to a real bike someday.

haha, ok, I was getting ready to form a drinking expeditionary force to descend upon this place with haste!

so it's open??!

Good to know this! More often than not my political activism is more along the lines of lively discourse with friends over a beer, or two, or three. I wish I had the money to buy the place, and renovate it (and the time required). I think it would make a killer bookstore/coffee shop/craft beer and wine establishment. heh, of course that would be in 10 or more years, for the time being, I think it would make a nice place to have a check cashing place, and maybe run a Mexico Direct bus service depot. http://es.houstonisd.org/CageES/History.html I wonder if this is still true? obviously the second part of the quote is incorrect at this time.

thanks, I just went through the historic district thread in the heights and found all emails addresses. 'districta@houstontx.gov'; 'districtb@houstontx.gov'; 'districtc@houstontx.gov'; 'districtd@houstontx.gov'; 'districte@houstontx.gov'; 'districtf@houstontx.gov'; 'districtg@houstontx.gov'; 'districth@houstontx.gov'; 'districti@houstontx.gov'; 'atlarge1@houstontx.gov'; 'atlarge2@houstontx.gov'; 'atlarge3@houstontx.gov'; 'atlarge4@houstontx.gov'; 'atlarge5@houstontx.gov' and then sent a copy to mayor@houstontx.gov did also get a reply from the historic preservation office, hard to tell if it was canned, or not.

should we go to city council with this? I hate to use an overbearing and obtrusive ordinance to protect something that is truly historic, but according to the historic preservation ordinance.... anyone have email addresses handy?

wow. I've emailed Diana.Ducroz@houstontx.gov; Courtney.Spillane@houstontx.gov on the historic preservation (COH) website, they are listed as the contacts for landmarks. whether they do anything, it's worth getting emails in.

I drive by there daily, could have guessed since they still haven't done crap about the roof damage from Ike, my guess is there's tons of water damage on the interior.

Well, both in the warehouse district, as well as the rest of east end, as Niche pointed out, it isn't repopulation. for the warehouse district prior to the condos and townhomes most of the land was commercial and industrial, so that isn't so much a repopulation as it is populating an area that historically wasn't used for residential. Granted there were residential structures that people used (and still do), it wasn't the norm. as for the rest of the east end, the area is still/already populated. I'd say if anything is happening, it is a changing of the residents. be it renters, owners or whoever. Anyway, as to the point, I think there are probably less people from out of town that are willing to come to the East End, than there are people who know Houston who choose the East End. I have no basis of fact on that, just a gut feeling from myself visiting other cities and judging the area based on the condition of the buildings that are in the area (and I'm sure, as Niche pointed out, some are so ignorant as to base their judgment on the skin tone of people they see). How many people park in their yard in the Heights, or in Montrose? You can either see ruts in the yard, gravel instead of a yard, or cars in the yard in half of the houses in most neighborhoods in the East End, that alone is probably going to scare someone who doesn't know Houston into looking somewhere else. How much gang graffiti is there in the Heights, or Montrose? Sadly, I see this one place under i45 (going south on the feeder, take the u-turn by the railroad tracks by Schlumberger) that has gang graffiti on it all the time, (even though some group comes by and paints over it, it's right back the next day) you just don't see that over there. That doesn't mean that there aren't issues with violence in those areas, it just means that at first appearance people will be frightened of the area. I'm not saying that everyone that transplants to Houston just ignores the East End, but I am saying that it is less likely. Most of the people I have met that have moved here, they do so because they are from Houston and heard good things about the neighborhood, usually through friends that live here. Some of them went to school at UH and decided to rent in the area, and decided to them live in the area. Anyway, lunch is over, back to the work.

I honestly didn't read any of what you wrote, I scanned it, but saw no answer to my question, which I really want to hear your answer: Again, I ask, if the framers of the ordinance had no intention of allowing such overzealous things happen, why is it written is such a way as to allow it? Why don't you answer that one S3MH? I encourage anyone who approves of the ordinance in its current state to please answer that question for me. And for the record, I'm not talking about political yard signs either, you are the only person who keeps bringing that up. I bet that if the ordinance was written in a much more specific manner that it would have gained even more support than it had, and in addition, they would not have had to resort to such underhanded tactics of getting it approved. But that's just my opinion and I have no way of supporting it as anything more. I went ahead and bolded the important parts for you, hopefully you won't miss it this time.

For reference as to why everyone replaces historical with hysterical... Although it was mentioned once that it was a point that the ordinance as was written gave the capability for this to be governed, and even stated by the person that made the comment that it was not believed that this would be the way the law was interpreted, or enforced. However, this has been referenced on more than multiple occasions this person I quoted, to create a 'negative hysteria' if you will, and I'm sure it isn't used just in here. I'm sure this person mentions it to every person possible to continue to sow seeds of dissension and confusion regarding the ordinance. You had mentioned you applaud this person's writing and standing up, I wish I could agree with you. A person who disagrees with something without truths and facts is not standing up at all, they are just blowing hot air (or mashing on a keyboard, as it were). in fact, I would go so far as to state that a person such as s3mh does more to harm their plight than gain support by making false statements, and not even knowing the text of the ordinance in full before making claims about what it does and doesn't achieve, or can achieve.

To be fair they say "that isn't the spirit of the law" and that you are intentionally "making it look worse than it will be" But in reality, until the law is practiced, no one knows how the law will be enforced, however the wording is there for them to be extremely draconian in their enforcement. What is very frustrating is to see people who are in vehement support of the ordinance having made it very clear through their misunderstanding that they have never read it, they are just for it. How can someone be for something without knowing what capability it has? Anyway, the real question that needs to be asked, is: If that isn't within the spirit of the ordinance, why was it written that way?

mac n cheese is all that, luckily I can make it in my kitchen.

Well doesn't downtown still have the highest population of workers? And isn't there the medical district not too far? Traffic to get in to downtown is still really crazy too.

This takes the mother in law quarters to an all new place!

has anyone else noticed how eado is just as awkward to type as it is to say? anyway.. not only that but the Warehouse District (the area marketed as eado) is already littered with townhomes that have either taken over former warehouses, or empty land, which way predate the stadium and metro(rail). the question at this point is, are any new construction in the area caused by the stadium/metro(rail) or by other new constructions that have already been done? or is it simply something that is accelerated? regardless, that specific area (east of 59 out to about velasco) is going to be like midtown east, there isn't any stopping it, it's impossible to not see that. of course, that's just my opinion.. as others have stated, the areas in and around Eastwood have been reported for years to become "the next *insert area of Houston*" and that is the question... Now that the old warehouse district is growing, becoming the next midtown, will it spread farther east? What good/bad is going to come/go with it?

great pictures! lol, I've done that a few times.

Unless Saudi Arabia decides to go Egypt as well, we won't see $7 gasoline any time soon, well, in the next 5 years. However, expenses will go up, as will Gasoline, people that work in downtown are going to want to live nearby. And yeah, it's not just a vast forgotten cotton field ready to be plundered by people eager to build a house and live close to town. There are already people living here though. Of the people that live here already, there's always a smattering of people who are willing to sell for a price that they and a buyer agree upon, which is likely to give the seller a profit over their investment price, and ultimately the higher prices will drive up the property values. In addition to a lot of homeowners, there are tons of renters. As the value of the property goes up, the owners of the rentals will see that they can clean the rentals up a bit and start charging more money to rent, or they can start charging more money to rent first. Either way, as the value goes up, so will the price to rent. The ultimate response to that is that the people renting will have to pay more, or go somewhere else, and someone who is willing to pay that price will move in. It sucks a bit, I like my neighborhood the way it is, the people, the Citgo around the corner that has lots of soft drinks that have real sugar, being able to ride my bike on telephone road at 6pm with no traffic at all. But there are things I don't like, that will only change when the neighborhood becomes more affluent. Things like, gang graffiti that gets repainted a few days after it is cleaned up, or idiots driving too fast down residential streets, or completely different idiots using loudspeakers connected to their radio so we all get to listen to whatever it is they call music (on a side note, I want to find out where these people live so I can go set their radio stations to classical permanently, how funny would that be to see some kid driving down your street with classical blaring? or maybe NPR, hmmmm). Anyway, even over the last 2 years I've seen a lot change for the better in the neighborhood.

agreed with that. and after you eat that burger, the tumultuous end that is spoken of would probably be a coronary caused from eating the burger itself. death incarnate and worth every drippy bite.

can you add public education to this? hell, every government run agency. I thought the streets were state as well? Regardless, they have a lot of land, bus farms, administration offices, etc. I think you have to be honest here, the $168 (that I am aware of) was not all given to CAF. I thought I read it was something like $50 million? Maybe METRO spent $168 million so far on planning, and things like that, and hell, there's lots of dirt that's been turned, just drive down any of the streets that the LRT is being built on, at least the east and south east lines.

ha, yeah, sorry, the loud horns are for the benefit of the person doing the illegal activity that is inconveniencing me, not for the other people who are simply in the area.

cheer up, the days inn is still there (for now)

star trek jokes aside, the stuff really exists! http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html

Hurricane or not, plastic will degrade over time in the sun anyway. becoming brittle, discoloring etc. At one time my parents had some corrugated fiberglass roofing over the patio. I can't remember if it lasted through Alicia or not. Regardless, it can crack if something falls on it with enough force. I think either way, if the material is light enough, hurricane force winds will be bad regardless of the material, you could build it stronger (sandwiching the roofing material between wood, rather than just attaching the roofing material to the frame. With material you can see through, you should expect to need to clean it, algae, mold, mildew, leaves, dirt, it will all be there, and you will notice.

It's possible/probable, that the people enforcing the law are lax, and give out warnings, stating "hey, we heard (but really we saw it, we would have to fine you if we saw it though) you do it, don't do it again, or we're going to fine you!" So the establishment gets scared and clams up, maybe for just a while, maybe for longer? I was at Agora yesterday and a guy and his wife came and shared the table I was at with their dog, he mentioned that they were told they couldn't have their pet on the patio somewhere else (I can only assume that it was Empire Cafe, as I did not ask him, but what else is in that area to eat?). Anyway, the more places that find they are losing business because they follow this rule, when another establishment down the road doesn't follow it, the more places are going to end up defying the rule. The more places that defy the rule, means the more people that find it customary to dine in the same space as dogs, and don't think on it poorly, the more support there will be for changing the law to allow for some form of legalization for dogs to safely share space with humans on patios. I mean, think of it now, the only rule is, do not have dogs, but so many places are allowing it anyway, doesn't it make sense to change the rule to ensure that instead of people breaking the rule (and possibly doing so in an unsafe manner) that they are at least doing so with cleanliness and consideration for safety? I mean, since when is government sensible, but isn't this the sensible thing to do? As an aside, I haven't really payed attention at disco green, but do dogs eat on the patio there?