RedScare

I really would like to join in on the evil West Coast Atheist Conspiracy, but I cannot seem to stop laughing long enough to type anything. So, I'll just sit this one out and read your thoughts on the matter.

BTW, anything new on the Kennedy matter?

Well, since your opinions on Baylor and ND are so strong, I must assume that you have some inside information on these matters. Please share it with us, since I have never heard ND mentioned as a possible Pac 10 invite, only Big 10...and they turned them down.

If you believe Baylor was snubbed because of its religious charter, you do not understand what the whole realignment thing was all about. The only religion considered by the Pac 10 and others was the religion of money, expressed in the form of eyeballs looking at TV sets. In short, the other schools deliver eyeballs, Baylor does not. They average 34,000 fans per game, barely above the Division 1 threshold. You also probably subscribe to the TexAgs.com view of 'liberal schools'. For all the talk of liberal Berkeley, it is the town that is liberal, not so much Cal. Cal is full of egg-headed Asians students. Berkeley the town is full of unwashed hippies. Most assuredly, the hippies do not run Cal.

Why did the Pac 10 choose Colorado over Baylor? Oh, I don't know, why do you vacation in Denver instead of Waco? BYU is a slightly different animal. Because the strict Mormon rules forbid playing sports on Sundays, it can wreak havoc on a sports schedule. Utah, without the Sunday ban, still gives the Pac 10 a foothold in Utah and Salt Lake City. And it's not like Utah, with 85% of its students coming from in state, is not a religious school in its own right, the Princeton Review ranking it the 20th most religious school in the country.

Believe it or not, it is actually COOLER this year than last. Last year, the blast furnace cranked up on June 9, and it never got below 95 degrees the rest of the month, eventually hitting 100 or more for 7 straight days. Every day since the 9th has been a few degrees cooler than 2009. Prior to the 9th some days were warmer, some cooler.

It doesn't show it on your chart, but I've read somewhere very recently that the biggest energy hogs per capita were in Canada. I'm not suggesting that gives us a free pass to run our ACs at 65 degrees in the summer, I'm just saying that all this criticism we level at ourselves (and take from the rest of the world) should actually be leveled at our polite neighbors to the north. Turn off the light when you leave the room, eh.

Much of that energy is used in industries that produce fuel and material for the United States, such as mining, oil production, timber, and paper and pulp production. Obviously, their long winters and sparsely populated provinces make for large heating and transportation costs, but even given these challenges, Canadians still manage to use slightly less energy per capita than the US. However, if you still wish to gripe about Canada's energy usage, park your car and turn down your thermostat, since a sizable portion of their energy and water consumption is used to provide their biggest customer their oil and gas.

What's with the 'Children of the Corn' references?

Interesting.

Note, that the Reliant Park people have been clear that the $88 Million estimate is for demolition and replacement with a plaza, water features, etc. The media may have not understood or made that clear.

Any idea what was included in that $6 Million for Texas Stadium? They did actually mention that it would be a lot more expensive than the demolition of Texas Stadium because of the close proximity of Reliant Stadium and Reliant Center.

Out of curiosity, I started looking around. Demolition of the Seattle Kingdome 10 years ago cost $9 Million. Not sure what all was included in that price either. (i.e., was that just the implosion, or did that include haul and restoration of the land to flat surface, or did it also include the creation of parking lots (which I believe is what replaced the Kingdome).

I didn't even see the water feature noted. There's several million right there. A bit off tangent perhaps, but why the hell do we need a plaza and "water feature" in an area that no one will see except secondarily to the event going on in the stadium? No one visits the stadium or Reliant Center to hang out. They go to pay admission to see the game or exhibits. I suppose the Rodeo people might like something for the throngs to look at, but the Rodeo and McNair...the 2 groups opposing redevelopment of the Dome...can pay for plazas and water features. If the Dome needs to implode, we should only pay for dynamite and dump trucks.

Back to demolition, I cannot imagine rubble removal not being included in the cost. And, while the stadium and Center are close (Texas Stadium sat alone in a field), they aren't THAT close. Demo of downtown buildings occurs within feet of other buildings routinely. These structures are upwards of 200 feet from the Dome. Let's say it cost double the Kingdome demo, that's $18 million, leaving $70 million for niceties. Whether intentional or not, the $88 million figure is misleading.

It does not cost $88 million to demolish the Dome.

Or, the Astrodome could be torn down.

Even that option likely would require a referendum on a bond measure to cover the estimated $88 million cost of demolition and conversion of the site into an outdoor plaza.

It cost $6 million to demolish Texas Stadium in Irving earlier this year. While the Dome is probably slightly larger, and a bit more complex, it is not 14 times as large or complex. Most of that $88 million is likely the price of turning the resulting 9 acre lot into an "outdoor plaza" sufficiently fancy to please our Billionaire renter, Bob McNair. If the Dome is to be razed, there is no reason not to turn that 9 acres into a parking lot that McNair can charge an exorbitant fee to park on.

I suspect the $88 million figure is the beginning of the plan to push a $1 Billion bond referendum on us.

I think its a combination of factors. The first is the count down effect, as in there are only so many chances to score. The game feels very finite, where as soccer feels the opposite as the ball is seemingly endlessly passed back and forth between the teams. Football gives you lots of breaks with high intensity in between those breaks. There is a large build up when it comes to a third down, or once the ball passes over the 20 yard line, or once the clock breaks the 2 minute mark. A "do or die" mentality that can occur many times in a game, as compared to just a few times (if any) in a soccer match.

I also think the frequency of scoring has an effect too on the average American viewer. It takes great patience to watch a game where you might see less than three total goals in a game. Again, you might catch a football game that's a stalemate due to even matched teams or poor weather, but typically there are points on the board, back and forth, all game long.

I think by boring most are simply referring to the lack of scoring, as I mentioned above. I think also its seen as "European", un-engaging, non-productive, etc etc because there are so few goals scored, possession of the ball is not as sacred, and that it is not a contact sport - when compared to American Football.

Once you put it on paper, Baseball by comparison is actually more boring than soccer when watched on television. I still think NASCAR takes the cake for sport hypocrisy though. 400 laps around a circle track that usually last over three hours, and where it takes multiple laps of strategy to just pass another racer, makes it sound like it would be the most boring sport out there by "American" standards. Perhaps its the fact that its race-cars, potential for crashes, bikini-clad babes, and beer sponsors' funny commercials that keep all those "southern gentlemen" interested.

Either way, the world cup only comes around once every four years. I'll keep watching the U.S. play as will my wife watch the Italians (for obvious reasons).

I don't disagree with a thing you've said. But, for them to continually post it on a pro-soccer thread is the strangest thing I've ever seen. A non-fan posting that he finds soccer boring or doesn't understand the rules and tactics, so that the soccer fans (who DO understand) can read it is akin to bragging how ignorant you are. And, it's not like they are asking to be educated. They keep posting over and over that they don't get it. OK, we understand. You cannot see the similarities of soccer to the sports of hockey, lacrosse and basketball. We understand that you do not understand what a pick and roll, give and go, and assist are, and how they apply to all 4 sports. But, why do you want to come on this thread and keep reminding us?

What perplexes me is how so many Americans can be in love with NASCAR, but call soccer boring?

I'm still perplexed at the 'soccer is boring' argument, when football produces 11 minutes of action over a period of 3 hours. I'm also perplexed why so many people feel compelled to tell us that they find it boring. I think it is some kind of secret citizenship test question. Or maybe a secret southern male thing, kind of like a secret handshake. There has to be SOME reason that people are still doing it.

The Mack 10.

My only response is...11 minutes. Try again.

It's definitely an inferior sport to the major ones here, due to its simplicity and lack of anything happening most of the time.

I always find it interesting when football fans criticize soccer. Your criticisms actually apply to the major American sports more than they would soccer. For instance, soccer's basic premise is identical to ice hockey (and lacrosse), only played with your feet on grass, instead of sticks. It is largely the same as basketball, as well. The set plays are very similar in all of those sports, with lots of give and go's, picks and blocks in an effort to free up a player for a shot on goal.

Now, let's talk about "lack of anything happening most of the time". Soccer matches are 90 minutes long. Play continues for the entire 90 minutes. Extra time is added at the ends of each half for stoppage time (injuries, etc.). And, American football, your so-called 'superior' sport? 11 minutes of actual play. Think about that. 11 MINUTES!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html

17 minutes is spent showing replays in an average game. One hour is spent on commercials. "As many as 75 minutes, or about 60% of the total air time, excluding commercials, is spent on shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps", according the the Wall Street Journal study. There's more...

In the four broadcasts The Journal studied, injured players got six more seconds of camera time than celebrating players. While the network announcers showed up on screen for just 30 seconds, shots of the head coaches and referees took up about 7% of the average show.

Football—at least the American version—is the rare sport where it's common for the clock to run for long periods of time while nothing is happening. After a routine play is whistled dead, the clock will continue to run, even as the players are peeling themselves off the turf and limping back to their huddles. The team on offense has a maximum of 40 seconds after one play ends to snap the ball again. A regulation NFL game consists of four quarters of 15 minutes each, but because the typical play only lasts about four seconds, the ratio of inaction to action is approximately 10 to 1. (At the end of a game, if one team has a lead and wants to prevent the other team from scoring again, standing around and letting the clock run down becomes a bona fide strategy).

Baseball is even worse. Only 3 of the 10 players or more on the field even do anything most of the time. Only when a ball is put in play do the other players get involved. Further, 74% of the time, the batter is unable to put the ball in play, meaning only 26% of the time is there any action. And, that is only the result of the at bat! Pitchers throw an average of about 120 pitches each per game. Each team averages 9 hits. So, 92.5% of the play involves a pitcher throwing the ball and the catcher catching it, with the occasional foul out of play. Only 7.5% of the pitches are put into play. Now, THAT's simplicity and lack of anything happening most of the time!

Better that you simply admit that you do not understand the game and have no interest in learning than try to criticize it. You only end up making it worse.

Apparently the "South" Heights district was created late last week. This means that the area south of 11th to 4th street, in between Heights and Studewood is now a new district.

The HAHC claims that the map and home inventory is not available for public consumption yet, but the district has been created and is subject to the new ordinance.

If you had plans to build in that area you better make some phone calls.

Probably because the numbers don't match the ordinance. They canvassed the neighborhood for signatures 3 years ago! If they had the signatures, it would have become a district when the other 2 districts were created. The timing of this stinks to high heaven. When things come together just in time, it usually means the fix is in. Given the way everything else has gone down, I would be willing to bet the signatures are not on the up and up.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/7044884.html

Nebraska accepted an invite by the Big Ten last night, setting in motion a domino that will likely mean the end of the Big 12. Word is, Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU and Colorado will join the Pac 10, unless A&M gets an offer to go to the SEC, which may be preferred by A&M's fans. Should be an interesting week or two.

My health insurance just went up from $550 a month to $950 a month. Since we started blaming presidents for every single thing that happens in society no matter if they have any authority over it or not; who can I blame for this? I hope the same thing doesn't happen to anyone else but this does not bode well.

Well, mine quadrupled in 3 years under the last guy, and I never used it. I'm cool with you blaming the prez for your increase, but I may be forced to blame the last one for mine.

What the...? Where is the Heights South map? What does it include? This is an even bigger screw around than changing the existing Historic Districts! They are submitting signatures for a historic district designation under rules that do not even EXIST yet? This likely includes MY frigging house, and I cannot even find it!

Why am I having to find out what people are doing to my property from a friggin' message board?

After we're connected, I just hope that we don't have to pay the huge monthly water bills that Kingwood had to

Kingwood had to pay after they were annexed by Houston. I have a friend over there and he

told me that his monthly summer water bills went from around $50 to over $300. Not sure what

rates have been negotiated for us in the Longwood subdivision area, but this could end up being

a real eye opener!

Under the 2009 City of Houston Water and Sewer rates, a resident would need to use 35,000 gallons of water in a single month to receive a $300 water bill. That's as much water as I've used in the last year. I don't doubt that some people could waste that much water, but frankly, if they do, they SHOULD pay $300 for it.

For comparison, the average consumer uses about 70 gallons per day, or 2,100 gallons per month.

White metal roofs are the most efficient in this climate. Whether this combination will match the architecture of your home is another matter. I cannot find it right now, but a study conducted by a Florida university (one of the mid-level schools, South Florida, perhaps?) found that a side by side comparison of a traditional 3 bedroom house with asphalt shingles and a one foot overhang with a white metal roof and a 3 foot overhang reduced air conditioning usage by 70%. Next best was silver metal. The bigger eave was valuable in keeping direct sunlight off of the windows. Not as big a deal on the north side, but huge on the south and west sides of the house. As rbarz mentions, the white reflects the heat. And metal does not absorb heat like asphalt does. Look for the SRI ratings of the products you look at. Here is an example.

http://www.englertinc.com/roofing-colorss.aspx?Page=2

Many HAIF regulars are dismayed to hear this. We have built up a great deal of respect and admiration for your house and your dog.

Speaking of which, I expect you to throw a hissy-fit over the leash law in Houston (even though it has had no effect on you, being a good pet owner.) To show your displeasure over others trying to control your property, perhaps you should threaten to sell your dog to a Korean restaurant.

"I'm gonna kill my dog! And it's all...Your...FAULT!"

Big Tex, surely you could have come up with a better analogy than that. The leash law dictates the terms under which I may take my two dogs onto public property. It is intended to protect other dogs and people from untrained or unpredictable dogs who may attack and bite. I not only have no problem with the leash law, I support it, just as I support laws that require others and myself to stop at stop signs and redlights, another ordinance that requires respect for others when in the public right of way.

My complaint is with telling property owners what they can do with their property AFTER they have purchased it. It is one thing for a neighborhood to vote restrictions upon itself through historic districts or deed restrictions. It is quite another to change the rules...drastically...after the vote, and without the property owners' permission. While my home is not in a historic district, it IS subject to deed restrictions, restrictions that were made known to me prior to purchasing the property. I have no gripe with the deed restrictions that I accepted upon purchase of the home.

The supporters of the historic district ordinance amendment, as evidenced by SCDesign's post, attempted to sneak the amendment by the homeowners by publishing the amendment on the Friday before a holiday weekend for a vote scheduled on the Tuesday after the holiday. Their emails to supporters claim that the vote was a "done deal" that got queered by a Missouri City resident and "politics", even though their tactics represent the worst of back room politics. They urged their supporters to demand that no re-ratification be required. Clearly, this groups is afraid that there are far fewer supporters in the districts than they claim in public. If this amendment is REALLY what the overwhelming majority wants, publicize it and vote on it!

My plan is simply to punish those who seek to control others by subterfuge and deceit by taking away that which they seek to control. Perhaps they can even use my threat to their benefit. They can argue that they must exert even more control with even more secrecy and fewer votes, because ne'erdowells like myself are threatening to ruin the Heights forever. Or maybe they will simply realize that, as heights yankee pointed out, that the current ordinance works well. I doubt it, but anything is possible. OR, they could send one of their like-minded friends over to offer to buy me out. I'm not stupid. If I get my price, I'll sell it to anyone. And mine hasn't been ruined by hideous 2 story additions on the back of it like you see in the historic districts.

Yet, houses often sell faster and for more per sq ft in this part of the Heights than the flashier areas (and b/c our houses are smaller, even at more per sq ft they are affordable relative to other parts of the neighborhood). People *want* to live within the restrictions because they don't want a giant house looming over their yard or 4 townhouses causing flooding/drainage issues on the lot next to them.

I really wish you would provide some proof of this. My admittedly small investigation found the opposite to be true. I am not ready to declare that historic district designations depress home values based on my limited research, but I definitely would disagree with Sue Lovell, the HHA, and now your characterization that the designation makes your home values rise faster than mine. I have seen this claim made VERY often, and have specifically looked for the source, but have never found one. I can only conclude that someone made the claim once and others took it at face value. I doubt there is even a Houston specific study of the issue.

Neighborhoods like mine, which is more than 70% contributing with only 3 homes built in the last decade, can really benefit from "no means no."

By your very own statements, at best, this new ordinance would have prevented 3 homes being built during the most prolific decade of home building in Houston's history. The new ordinance would have virtually no effect on your district whatsoever. This is what I find so offensive, that a minuscule problem of 3 new homes per decade must be combated by restricting the rights of everyone else. And the secretive and heavy handed manner in which the supporters attempted to ram this new ordinance through, and the outright refusal to let the affected parties ratify the new ordinance does not bode well for even-handed application of the new rules. Safe to say, anyone who wants the ability to remodel their own home without being told what they may do by heavy handed neighbors should steer clear of the historic districts. Nothing we've seen suggest anything less than a nightmare.

Now Niche, why'd you have to go and throw Reason into the discussion, I was enjoying Red's hysterical rant about how its all my fault and how I'm a bad, evil suburbanite.

You are mischaracterizing my posts. I was chuckling that YOUR rant was based on your own ignorance of what is going on around you.

1999 and 2000?

I was living in Afton Oaks, so yes, the North Harris County Regional Water Authority issue was probably not high on my agenda.

So, you did not research the area you were buying in before you bought there and you're blaming Houston for that? Do you often blame others for your failure to do your own research? Do you happen to work for BP? And Afton Oaks? Is that the same Afton Oaks that sits in the middle of the City of Houston and uses Houston water? You didn't figure out that they use Houston water either?

You know, this thread was pretty much over by the 2nd post, but highlighting the fact that your opinions seem to be based on your own ignorance of the facts, coupled with your willful refusal to educate yourself, and compounded by your insistence upon blaming others for it is just too good to pass up.

Random unpublicized special elections are 'special' for a reason. Usually those who stand to benefit the most know about them and turn up to vote.

Repeated front page articles and television news stories regarding an election does not a random and unpublicized election make. Don't blame Houston for your lack of awareness on issues that affect your life. Not only did you managed to miss the legislation passing, but also the election and the huge debate on how to switch to surface water, including the well-publicized debate on the rates Houston would charge. Frankly, one would have had to try to miss it.