Kingwood Complaints

[millennica]

Niche,

My whole point has been that your arrogance, and apathy for the people who would be laid off was disgusting to say the least. Your posts have only proven that you don't even understand the basic concept of family responsibility, yet you are the first to try and council others on it.

Surely you aren't surprised by Niche's arrogance, need to dispense his wisdom and give counsel to others not only on this topic, but on a myriad of other topics as well. One doesn't have to read a lot of Niche's posts to see that this is his modus operandi. I thought that all but a few on this board believed that Niche was HAIF's resident expert on everything and his words were final and to be taken as gospel. You mean I was wrong about that? Well do say?

[Vertigo58]

My whole point has been that your arrogance.

Your posts have only proven that you don't even understand the basic concept of family responsibility, yet you are the first to try and council others on it.

Love it, love it, love it. 10 million BONUS points. ding, ding, ding! Tilt, tilt.

Move to the front of the class Mr Jeebus.

[VicMan]

Someone on Kingwood.com started a "Is Kingwood Doomed?" thread citing studies criticizing the longevity of suburbs.

I pointed out the fact that Kingwood is along a rail line, and that commuter rail may help Kingwood if gasoline prices rise: http://www.kingwood.com/message_board/view...arent_id=107707

EDIT: Uhm, this guy's subsequent posts look REALLY loony - Maybe he is a jokester or something to that effect...

The Kingwood subdivision is almost completely built-out, so an organic garden, etc. would have to be in an adjacent community.

Edited September 6, 2007 by VicMan

[VicMan]

Some of the posts by Peakoiler:

"What's more likely is raiding parties of increasingly poor, desperate, and violent Houston thugs looking for booty in Kingwood. " = Alarmist

"Only problem is, what if there are no jobs downtown to go to? Worse yet, what if crime got so bad downtown that you dare not go there?

As New Orleans proved, the veneer of civility is very thin. If we go through a long and painful period of economic contraction, and government budgets wither in the face of declining tax revenue, and the cheese is no longer slung to the welfare critters... it'll be ugly." - Huuuuuhhh?

[musicman]

As New Orleans proved, the veneer of civility is very thin."

actually vic this is quite true. i was at heb the other day and two "katrina refugees" (their words) were upset cause they couldn't cash a check because the address on their check didn't match their id.

[VicMan]

actually vic this is quite true. i was at heb the other day and two "katrina refugees" (their words) were upset cause they couldn't cash a check because the address on their check didn't match their id.

Well, I can understand why they would be upset. But what actions did they take? Did they yell at the clerks?

[musicman]

Well, I can understand why they would be upset. But what actions did they take? Did they yell at the clerks?

there were signs everywhere that stated the address on check must match id. one lady went up and tried it, the clerk said no. her friend had a check too and went up and tried it...the clerk said no. the check watermarks were identical (govt assistance). the scam is that people are using multiple addresses to try and get multiple assistance checks (hence the id check). one of them didn't even have a texas id. guess she hasn't figured out the process to get a tx id after TWO YEARS. they didn't yell specifically but one sure did raise her voice and said "you don't even cash them for katrina refugees?" of course, there were signs on BOTH sides of the courtesy window, but they played ignorant and went ahead and tried anyway.

[VicMan]

That looks like a sign of "wishful thinking" (As in "Oh, even though the sign says X, Y will happen).

I think what Peakoiler was referring to is the looting after Katrina.

Perhaps we HAIFers should examine his claims and see if they are legit.

Peakoiler Post #1:

* "Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness.

Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.

But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life..." http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

The oil boom transformed the Houston area from a swampy backwater into a global powerhouse; as cheap oil made automobile suburbs like Kingwood possible.

But now, for a variety of reasons, cheap oil is running out and we are bankrupt as a nation. The country's major export is debt-based dollars. We live on borrowed money. We have mortgaged our future. The credit crunch going on in the markets and lending industry is the beginning of the end.

What will happen to Kingwood as scarce and expensive oil makes the easy-motoring lifestyle more difficult? What will happen as economic activity grinds to a halt, businesses go under, employees are laid off? What will happen as property values sink because nobody can find a mortgage lender?

What will happen when crop yields plummet, the price of food and transportation skyrockets, and grocery store shelves are empty?

How will Kingwood react?

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net "

Peakoiler Post #2:

But this community is not funded by the oil and gas industry. How many of you (besides jd) work in oil and gas?

I didn't say it was. I did say that the community was dependent on cheap oil. It depends on cheap oil and natural gas for transportation, food, water, heating and cooling, electricity, and consumer goods. Most peoples' jobs depend directly or indirectly on the paradigm of a "cheap oil economy."

The oil and gas industries, and associated workers, will fare well in the near-term as higher oil prices enhance their profitability; but as you say, not many people in Kingwood are in the industry. As time goes on however, fossil fuel companies will find it much more difficult to replace and bring to market their rapidly-declining resource base.

Nothing is crashing, the lender scare is getting blown out of proportion

The crash is underway. It's going to get a lot worse.

gasoline really, if adjusted to inflation, is less expensive now than it was in the early '80s

Expect gasoline to double or triple in price by 2010.

Don't panic and move to the 5th Ward.

Why would I move to the ghetto if I was expecting pandemonium and an unravelling of the social contract?

Peakoiler Post #3:

GREASER

Gas has been running out since 1970

In a manner of speaking, oil has been "running out" since the first well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859.

When U.S. oil production peaked and began to decline after 1970, we were still able to grow our oil consumption, and therefore our economy, by importing oil from other countries.

We even figured out a way to avoid paying for this oil due to something called dollar hegemony. We owe the world a lot of money, and so far they really haven't come collecting. They will.

The problem we face now is that world oil production is peaking. Economic growth is predicated on an ever-increasing supply of oil. Our economy needs oil to grow; and it has to grow to avoid collapsing. This is because we have a debt-based monetary system.

Cancer is a disease characterized by a population of cells that grow ... without respect to normal limits.

Anyway, oil is much more than just fuel for our cars, but the basis for our entire way of life. We will have to make due with much less oil - and possibly rather soon. Major economic dislocation could precede the coming oil shock, but it will most definitely follow it.

(There are more, but I posted a sampling of his posts)

[musicman]

That looks like a sign of "wishful thinking" (As in "Oh, even though the sign says X, Y will happen).

I think what Peakoiler was referring to is the looting after Katrina.

Perhaps we HAIFers should examine his claims and see if they are legit.

i'll just leave it to the kingwood forum......

[VicMan]

Musicman, it seems like Kingwood.com members aren't interested in dissecting and rebutting his claims.

We should seek TheNiche and some others and have them examine these claims

[musicman]

Musicman, it seems like Kingwood.com members aren't interested in dissecting and rebutting his claims.

LOL i side with the kingwood.com members too.

We should seek TheNiche and some others and have them examine these claims

leave the me out of we.

[VicMan]

It seems like "Peakoil" was banned from the Kingwood forums for being a pest. Yeah, Peakoil is a troll.

Edited September 8, 2007 by VicMan

[Guest Marty]

It seems like "Peakoil" was banned from the Kingwood forums for being a pest. Yeah, Peakoil is a troll.

I don't care what peakoil does on other forums.

[TheNiche]

Niche, if your solution was as easy as "just cutting back a little on consumption", then sure - we'd all have a decent nest egg. The board is correct in pointing out that even as a young, single, and successful person, you still don't understand the basic hardships of family life. Not everyone like yourself gets to choose when to fall in love or when to have children. Sometimes life is full of spontaneity. I doubt that even one percent of those who could be laid off during a de-annexation are in your position financially. I'd be willing to bet that over half share mine.Now, concerning my own personal affairs - by paying a mortgage on a house while still sending my wife to school full time, I AM thinking of my daughter. I could choose to stay living in an apartment and have my wife work full-time without attaining her degree, which in the long run would make for more hardships than those faced in the interim.My whole point has been that your arrogance, and apathy for the people who would be laid off was disgusting to say the least. Your posts have only proven that you don't even understand the basic concept of family responsibility, yet you are the first to try and council others on it.

While I can very easily sympathize with the reality that life does not always go to plan, and that love basically changes everything, every priority that you thought that you had, just as it has for me in the past. In fact, to be very frank with you, I envy what you have. My experiences have been impermanent unfortunately.

But that does not change my core position on this issue. You did not have to buy such a large home. But you put yourself in a more precarious financial position, and that is a choice that you made that I would not have made had I been in your shoes. And surely there are expenses that can be cut or ways in which one or both of you could bring in more income. It is a simple formula.

The more important point as it relates to this thread is, however, that 1) you pay into a fund that provides unemployment insurance which could assist you if you were laid off, and 2) assuming that it is in fact preferable that Clear Lake and Kingwood be de-annexed, then why should we hold off, and have a less efficient system of governance serving over two million households just to spare a few hundred households like your own the inconvenience? Nobody said life was fair, and if I had my way, I'd even dismantle the 1st point so as to grant individual households the freedom to spend that money as they see fit or to build up their own nest egg, invested as they see fit.The bottom line remains: you may ask me why I don't care to throw a bone to families like your own; it is because it will only be taken from the very same pool of households. You are not entitled to claim the welfare of others.

Without tact, the best of intentions comes across as [negative connotation here], You will need some tact to get girls.

I'd rather hold out for one with a spine, that can accept steadfast honesty for what it is without blinking an eye, thank you.Granted, it may be a long wait, but as conceeded above, things do not always go to plan.

And to my crew of haters: I'll grant only as much regard as peakoil deserves. That is to say, only this much.

Edited September 9, 2007 by TheNiche

[Guest Marty]

And to my crew of haters: I'll grant only as much regard as peakoil deserves. That is to say, only this much.

ROTFLMAO, And to my crew of haters................

Edited September 9, 2007 by Marty

[millennica]

CREW

[Jeebus]

assuming that it is in fact preferable that Clear Lake and Kingwood be de-annexed, then why should we hold off, and have a less efficient system of governance serving over two million households just to spare a few hundred households like your own the inconvenience?

Nobody said life was fair..

Your point actually relates well to the position of most Republicans today on illegal immigration. They don't care that we turned our head for the last 30 years letting them come over in the masses with no penalty. They just want every single one of them deported tomorrow without question - no matter the circumstance or consequence.

So even though it was against the will of the residents of Clear Lake & Kingwood to be annexed, now the city realizes its folly and should de-annex them both tomorrow. To hell with worrying about the collateral damage like: who will patrol the streets or repsond to fire and ems calls; or who will come out and repair the broken traffic light that's backing up traffic for two miles or repair a water main when it breaks leaving a neighborhood without water pressure.

I guess it will be the county's problem. Let them deal with the complications of having to expand all their services to meet the needs of these two burbs until they can get their act together and incorporate - IF they incorporate. Let them (the county or the new townships) worry about hiring back all the laid off employees at their own convientent pace - if they even offer those jobs back to said ex-employees.

And if the laid-off employees can't get their old jobs back with the same pay & benefits, then by your standard, it will be their own fault if they don't already have enough money already saved to pay a mortage, car note, insurance, utilities, food, & gas, for at least a year while they find a new job - or worse, have to learn a new skill set (if they're not too old or forced into a early retirement situation).

You indeed make the hardest neo-con look soft.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Jeebus

[webdude]

I'd rather hold out for one with a spine, that can accept steadfast honesty for what it is without blinking an eye, thank you.Granted, it may be a long wait, but as conceeded above, things do not always go to plan.

And to my crew of haters: I'll grant only as much regard as peakoil deserves. That is to say, only this much.

Tact does not mean dishonest. You can be tactful and honest (even steadfast honest).

And I don't hate you (if you think I am one of your haters). You said you are still engage in the earlier stages. . That is a problem. I merely pointed out a solution.

Edited September 10, 2007 by webdude

[Guest Marty]

Your point actually relates well to the position of most Republicans today on illegal immigration. They don't care that we turned our head for the last 30 years letting them come over in the masses with no penalty. They just want every single one of them deported tomorrow without question - no matter the circumstance or consequence.

It looks like there might be a change in the works.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5118444.html

Arrest policy changed on illegal immigrants

County's new procedure may make it harder to elude deportation

The Harris County Sheriff's Office has stopped issuing "non-arrest" bonds to illegal immigrants, closing what victim advocates called a loophole that allowed some suspects to dodge deportation.

The new policy was implemented on Aug. 22, the same day the Houston Chronicle published a story on Juan Felix Salinas, an illegal immigrant accused of causing a crash that killed three people while he was free on a non-arrest bond.

"We certainly applaud the change," said Andy Kahan, director of the Mayor's Crime Victims Office.

Before the policy took effect, Harris County Jail officials allowed suspects with outstanding warrants for certain relatively minor crimes to pay "non-arrest" bonds without being formally booked, sheriff's Sgt. D.M. Mackey said.

I think they should go after the hard core element like Human traffic smugglers, drug runners and gangs.

[TheNiche]

Your point actually relates well to the position of most Republicans today on illegal immigration. They don't care that we turned our head for the last 30 years letting them come over in the masses with no penalty. They just want every single one of them deported tomorrow without question - no matter the circumstance or consequence.

The essence of my argument is that government policy should be that individuals take responsibility for their own exposure to financial risk. That is materially different from anything relating to the immigration debate as it is commonly framed.

So even though it was against the will of the residents of Clear Lake & Kingwood to be annexed, now the city realizes its folly and should de-annex them both tomorrow. To hell with worrying about the collateral damage like: who will patrol the streets or repsond to fire and ems calls; or who will come out and repair the broken traffic light that's backing up traffic for two miles or repair a water main when it breaks leaving a neighborhood without water pressure.

I guess it will be the county's problem. Let them deal with the complications of having to expand all their services to meet the needs of these two burbs until they can get their act together and incorporate - IF they incorporate. Let them (the county or the new townships) worry about hiring back all the laid off employees at their own convientent pace - if they even offer those jobs back to said ex-employees.

Realistically, de-annexation is a process that cannot take place "tomorrow." Even once it were voted upon, there would be a period of time prior to the enactment of the vote during which services are reorganized so as to either redeploy HPD, HFD, etc. or to sell off assets to Harris County, a new municipality, a MUD, or a special district formed legislatively. And believe me, the City of Houston would NOT de-annex something without being able to sell off all its infrastructure, police stations, libraries, fire stations, and parks to some other taxing entity with jurisdiction in the de-annexed areas. It'd just be stupid. And with that in mind, whoever buys all that infrastructure is going to hire the folks necessary to use and maintain it.

And they'll need people to administer it. Taking into account that a smaller government entity won't have the same economies of scale that the City of Houston does, the net result will likely be more jobs, sooner than later. ...and since these relatively wealthier enclaves both complain about not getting equitable treatment from the City of Houston, it does not seem at all reasonable that they would only hire back an equivalent number of public employees--they'll probably hire more than there were before! And if they don't, then that would only go to show there really wasn't any good argument for de-annexation in the first place.

Your argument is moot.

And if the laid-off employees can't get their old jobs back with the same pay & benefits, then by your standard, it will be their own fault if they don't already have enough money already saved to pay a mortage, car note, insurance, utilities, food, & gas, for at least a year while they find a new job - or worse, have to learn a new skill set (if they're not too old or forced into a early retirement situation).

You indeed make the hardest neo-con look soft.

This would be a valid concern. Most suburban municipalities don't pay their staff as much money because those middle- and upper-income workers have a strong preference to working in a suburb. This is especially true of police, who are less likely to get injured or killed, but is also true of people who have families, want to work work near where they live, and also want to be in a good school district, all at once. And where Houston is perceived of as more of a monolithic bureaucracy that is tough to work within, smaller municipalities don't carry that stigma quite as much. So bottom line is that the pay doesn't tend to be quite as high...but the job may be qualitatively better, quite possibly causing a net increase in the level of general life satisfaction among the majority of affected pubic employees.

And if a slight decrease in uninterrupted pay were enough to put a handful of people into financial distress, then whose problem is that, really? Perhaps some of them really are just consuming too much. Perhaps some of them need to sell their home and move into something more manageable. Perhaps they need to shop at their neighborhood Kroger instead of driving into town to shop at Whole Foods. Perhaps they've racked up too much debt and need to get it all refinanced and consolidated. There are plenty of large households--even intergenerational households--that manage to make ends meat on an income less than the single salary of a typical beat cop.

Fundamental question: why is it the duty of the public to ensure that your household is able to consume what it wants? You aren't the only one with a family to house, feed, clothe, and nurture, after all; nor are you the only one that aspires to a better lifestyle. If you're really just down on your luck, and you'd like to set up a fund and ask individuals among the public to contribute to it, that's OK with me. But the moment that you start preaching about my responsibility to give you money (and not graciousness) because your ongoing consumption exceeds your income, or because you willfully made decisions that made you financially distressed, is the moment that I not only stop listening to your sob stories, but refuse to offer you a job (if I have one) or any material support. At that point, you are not a beggar, but a thief. ...and you want assurances that you will have some means of covering expenses as you spend a year looking for a job? Lazy thief.

You say that I'd make the hardest neo-con look soft, but who is truely hard? As far as I'm concerned it is the person that would enforce a tax supporting your welfare which if not paid would result in prosecution, fines, and imprisonment. I'd also inject that supporting your excessive consumption habits is a policy supported by some twisted sense of morality, and that morality should not be legislated. ...but then I don't make a very good neo-con in the first place.

P.S. - Excuse my late response. My desktop died and the crappy laptop I've temporarily replaced it with locks up when I try to reply to anything. So I'm having to use a friend's computer whenever I am actually able to HAIF.

Edited September 12, 2007 by TheNiche

[TheNiche]

Tact does not mean dishonest. You can be tactful and honest (even steadfast honest).

In practice, someone that is tactful is difficult to distinguish from someone being disingenuous. For instance, several months ago, I had a lender tell me that a particular process that I'd informed him I had to do could either be done immediately or put off until later would be "easy" one way or the other and that doing immediately would only cause the loan to take longer to issue. Turns out recently that he was being honest, but that it would almost certainly cost me a whole lot more money. He should've said "It'll be easy, but will cost you a lot of money."

I'd rather be the kind of person that doesn't hide anything and isn't perceived as hiding anything, trying to be slick, or particularly suave or sophisticated. If a woman wants a guy that does nothing but compliment them, they need to look for someone else. That is a woman with deep-seated insecurities--the type that will identify me as someone that they can really open up to and waste a lot of my time getting what essentially amounts to unheeded therapy and advice--and good god, I've gone through too many of those. I'd much rather persue someone as unsophisticated as I am.

And I don't hate you (if you think I am one of your haters). You said you are still engage in the earlier stages. . That is a problem. I merely pointed out a solution.

Heh, heh, "haters" and all that were just figures of speach, created in good humor.

I don't see being in the earlier stages as a problem. Everybody except for those with arranged marriages start off there. Moreover, it isn't even a matter of how quickly you get from Start to Finish. For instance, what would have been a problem is if I'd eloped with a high school sweetheart (one that years later shot her then-boyfriend in the head five times and used the last bullet on herself) and run off to Nepal. It would also be a problem if I were still unmarried on my death bed.

I'm picky. No amount of shallow companionship today is sufficient compensation for a missed opportunity--even the slightest chance--at a healthy long-lasting and loving relationship. So I don't waste my time (at least not any more). At this stage, I am without any problem insofar as I am actively searching and presenting TheNiche for who he is, and only that. ...but the first time I go through any trouble on my part to be tactful, that's when I'll know to seek advice. As you are so willing to dispense it, you'll be the first person I PM.