RedScare

Actually, East End is very common. Just like our West End. Many cities have coined this term. My gut tells me that the East End and West End refer to the last stops in the transit system at some point, but I have no independent knowledge of such.

Here's a photo of the bridge. Look closely at the section over the bayou for the aforementioned sheet metal.

Well, an NFL team named the Stingarees would be a damned sight better than what Houston ended up with.

80% of Ben Taub's patients arrive through the emergency room. Not sure why light rail access would be important if one is arriving by ambulance, but there is a light rail stop a couple blocks away if that's important to you. By the way, Ben Taub is one of the premier trauma centers in the US. It is not shabby by any standard. But, thanks for the attempted dig.

Uptown and Midtown have taken hold, but they sound OK. EaDo just flat sounds stupid. NoDo never stuck, either. In 20 years, I doubt anyone will even remember EaDo...except for the unemployed marketing wiz who coined it. Something else will be thrown out that sounds better, and that will catch on. Perhaps 'Easton', or someting else similar. EaDo just sounds wretched, and therefore no one will use it unless they are forced.

I think you are confusing "stated reason" and actual reason. The top executives prefer to live in Dallas. Therefore, the world headquarters are in Dallas. The "stated reason" is simply given so as not to have the actual reason on record. I suspect that if you ran the world's largest corporation, you'd want the headquarters in the city you prefer as well. They moved the HQ from New York because rents had gotten too high (but probably because they were tired of New York as well), but they did not want to move to Houston. Given that much of Exxon's business is worldwide, having the HQ in Dallas, down the street from a major airport, is a good location. Exxon USA is centralized in Houston, and becoming moreso. It is only the world HQ that is located in Dallas.

We have very nice courthouses erected for just such an eventuality. We even have caselaw already decided by judges to let the aggrieved parents know what will happen in said courthouse. There are no laws prohibiting me from walking my dogs on public sidewalks. Restaurant owners should be allowed to decide whether to allow mine on their patio. As for your allergies, I suppose you favor outlawing peanuts in all restaurants, as well? BTW, I never take my dogs to restaurants/bars. I don't feel like spending the energy keeping them nearby. But, I'm fine with others doing so. EDIT: Oops, just saw bigtex's peanut reply.

Ten bucks says s3mh couldn't tell us what subdivision that is without looking for it. BTW, the infamous and vaunted Norhill deed restrictions allow construction to a height of 40 feet. This proposed structure will only be 60 feet. Though s3mh claims it will be triple the size of the surrounding neighborhood over on Swamplot, it will only be a mere 20 feet higher than the most restrictive neighborhood allows. Hardly seems worth getting one's panties in a bunch.

As a Heights resident, I have to say that I cannot see the sunrise until it clears the one story house across the street. By that time, it can hardly be considered a sunrise, at least not one worthy of restricting the right of property owners to build there. But, then, if you are so important that everyone within your view must bow to your wishes, I guess anything is possible. I DO wonder how the sunrise poster gets away with blocking the sunrise of the resident immediately to her west, though...and why she is so thoughtless as to block it.

Actually, there is a possibility to get around it if the premise derives less than 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages, and it has a food and beverage permit from TABC. See TABC Sec. 109.33 (f). However, the 300 foot rule still applies. This property appears to lie within 300 feet of a public school.

In response to my post that you cannot see the sunrise for the trees, you post a quote from a guy that lived in the desert? Brilliant.

What's this sunrise/sunset crap? There are so many trees in the Heights that you can't see them anyway. I tell ya, the crap this poster comes up with to justify taking other people's rights is just beyond imagination. Now, a sunrise justifies taking your property?

Note to bigtex. The hot dog carts were banned in Houston due to pressure exerted by the Houston Restaurant Association. Hard as it is to believe, the restaurantuers believed the low priced dogs were a threat to an actual meal at a sit-down establishment. It was cloaked as a health issue. Technically, the carts ARE legal. They just have prohibitive rules for operation, making them all but impossible to operate.

Actually,it does not. My complaint is that too many people are pushing for government regulation to enforce their tastes. I believe that, absent a legitimate health or safety reason (your example about hot dog vendors might be one), government should leave to the private retailers to run their restaurants as they see fit. There are plenty of restaurants that would not allow pets, as they would conflict with the ambience. Others might encourage well behaved pets. Unruly pets, like unruly patrons, can be expelled by the owners of the restaurant. They do not need the backing of armed police to properly run their store. Subdude, like you and I, are not entitled to private businesses run exactly as we would like. We are not entitled to government regulations enforcing the way we want a restaurant run. We are also not entitled to have government force our neighbors to renovate their homes to our tastes, or to only allow the "right" kind of retailer down the street. However, we have moved in that direction. It is not a good move. It should be reversed.

Well, it's certainly all about you, isn't it? Before you go all spastic on me, I said it that way for a reason. You are demanding laws (or the keeping of laws already in place) to suit your tastes, not because the public is endangered by the practice. Dogs have lived with humans forever. Your health claims are bogus, as are the health department's. This is a "style" issue, as opposed to substance, and frankly, these types of rules weigh society down (not this one in particular, but this type of law). We really need to start eliminating these types of laws, not enacting more of them. At least the smoking ordinance had a tenuous claim to health (save your typing, as I find the second hand smok "science" to be a fraud), but this ordinance is simply regulation of taste. So is the historical ordinance. There is nothing historic about my 90 year old bungalow. It is simply old and cute.

After shafting me in mid-renovation, if you think I or any of my neighbors are going to help you oppose ANY development or support more regulation in the Heights area, you're stoned, as well as delusional. Get this stinkin' hysterical ordinance off of my house and we'll talk. Until then, I'm supporting the builder.

A very thoughtful and pragmatic response. Thank you.

Me too.

I patronize several pet friendly patios (since it is the only place I can smoke), and I can honestly say that I have never seen an unruly dog at any of them. And, given the number of patrons (including myself) who cannot resist petting or stroking the dog's head, it is abundantly clear that a large percentage of the patrons at these restaurants and bars approve of the owners allowing the dogs. I don't doubt that there are some who do not approve. The world is full of grumpy people. However, the quickness of which some would have the government enforce their grumpiness is rather startling. Does the weather cause the pro-government regulation tsunami? Currently, there are threads advocating the government tell me how to renovate my home, advocating zoning, advocating the outlawing of retailers that do not have hip appeal, outlawing dogs, regulating the look of highrises, and of course, fondly recalling the outlawing of smoking in bars.

I, for one, am extremely pleased that our city does not subscribe to such an authoritarian policy. Nothing promotes graft and bribery more than to vest subjective and absolute power in the hands of a single individual. This sounds exactly like something that mob controlled Chicago might do. I have no interest in living in a city run like Chicago.

You just made an argument based on zoning, a law Houston does not have, and has been specifically defeated. Additionally, this area did not have a historic district forced upon it. Further, it is an empty lot, so nothing was destroyed in order to build upon it. Your opposition is duly noted (just as you oppose everything else, even when it contradicts your other opposition), but your approval is not required to build on this lot. If you'd like to impose zoning on Houston, I suggest you do a little more than simply post false statements on an internet forum. If everyone agrees with you as you claim, it shouldn't be too tough to change the City Charter. But, you are already too late for this parcel.

That could be the case if only it were true. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low. In fact, a big chunk of the exploding national debt came from the cutting of taxes from their previously moderate levels. And, numerous studies show that some of our biggest economic expansions occurred during periods of high taxes. But, I will definitely agree that throwing the "high taxes" cocktail into any discussion of infrastructure spending will always get a few people to agree with you.

These oldtimers seem to believe that microwave telephone transmission has become all but obsolete, except in a few remote areas where fiber optic is not cost effective. http://www.thecentraloffice.com/Microwave/microwave%20sites.htm http://www.drgibson.com/towers/ They do agree with you that the towers are being repurposed as cell towers and to transmit cell traffic. In that sense, I would also agree with you. I was commenting on the original use of the towers, long distance phone calls. Perhaps we just have different definitions of the word "thriving".

No overreaction or hyperbole in that post at all. Good job keeping things in perspective.

It's hard to oversell how big a failure this has been when the hometown paper has it as its headline all week. http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/super-bowl/local/20110204-bad-weather-devastating_to-super-bowl_s-economic-impact-for-dallas-fort-worth.ece