Washington Avenue More Urban Than Midtown

[EMME]

Only part of Midtown was in the Fourth Ward. Most of it was part of the Third Ward.

Third ward is the U of Houston area. Midtown is fourth ward.

http://www.storymapping.org/thirdward.html

Edited June 2, 2009 by EMME

[brian0123]

I thought the third ward was the Binz area and the medical center, Riverside area.

Just found this... http://images.chron.com/content/news/photo...02/08/wards.pdf

[TheNiche]

I thought the third ward was the Binz area and the medical center, Riverside area.

It originally included everything east of Main and south of Harrisburg. Our conception of these areas only changed as freeways divided neighborhoods and white flight gave way to a more ethnically uniform demographic. The area commonly referred to as "Third Ward" became dominated by the relatively small concentration of poor black people in what had previously been referred to as "Negro Encampment" on the old documents.

[EMME]

It originally included everything east of Main and south of Harrisburg. Our conception of these areas only changed as freeways divided neighborhoods and white flight gave way to a more ethnically uniform demographic. The area commonly referred to as "Third Ward" became dominated by the relatively small concentration of poor black people in what had previously been referred to as "Negro Encampment" on the old documents.

Incorrect! All of Midtown is fourth ward.

[TheNiche]

Incorrect! All of Midtown is fourth ward.

I could use some extra income, so place any bet and I'll match it.

[EMME]

I could use some extra income, so place any bet and I'll match it.

The boundaryline between 3rd and 4th wards is Main St on each and every map that shows the wards. When I am thinking midtown, I am thinking the apts near Gray and Bagby. Where is your Midtown?

[RedScare]

You're right, area residents have no right to complain about their tax dollars being spent to further one man's mission to keep white people out of midtown.

You must feel so open minded when you defend slumlords and free loaders over "hip and urban yuppies" (AKA tax payers).

I'm doing neither. I am merely informing the previous poster what the cops are REALLY thinking when he buddies up to them. And, since you bring it up, you have every right to complain about whatever irks you. Just remember what YOU think about people that complain all the time.

I do have to admit that I do not consider the working poor 'freeloaders'. On that particular issue, yeah, I do feel pretty open-minded.

[TheNiche]

The boundaryline between 3rd and 4th wards is Main St on each and every map that shows the wards. When I am thinking midtown, I am thinking the apts near Gray and Bagby. Where is your Midtown?

So...how much is on the table? $10, $20, $100, $1000, $100000? I'll accept the deed to your house as collateral.

Edited June 2, 2009 by TheNiche

[barracuda]

So basically, we know now that they are required by law to devote 1/3 of the money for low income housing. Also, the Redev Authority has purchased low income land (and housing) in 3rd ward. So here's my question to those on here... Since our TIRZ has to spend 1/3 of our money on low income housing, would you rather them be buying up land in 3rd ward for low income housing, or within Midtown? My vote is for outside of Midtown.

That makes some sense. It is more affordable to buy land in the third ward rather than in midtown, so it makes sense from an economic perspective.

However, from a socioeconomic standpoint, is it really more desirable to locate large numbers of low income people into one single area? If these folks are to have a chance at climbing the economic ladder, they need access to jobs, education, mass transit, etc. This seems almost like zoning on an socioeconomic level. Or should I call it segregation.

I personally don't have a problem with mixing different income groups in one district, assuming they are generally law abiding employable citizens.

[TheNiche]

I personally don't have a problem with mixing different income groups in one district, assuming they are generally law abiding employable citizens.

...so you're OK if all the crooks, cripples, and retarded are segregated into one neighborhood?

How enlightened!

[ihop]

Read my post above yours. By law, Midtown is required to spend 1/3 of the money it collects on low income housing. I think everyone is worked up because of the idiotic thing the state rep said. Despite his comment, I'd rather them be abiding by the law and developing low income housing OUTSIDE of Midtown... not within it.

I wonder what percentage of the Midtown TIRZ's budget is dedicated to gobbling up land in the 3rd ward, tho'. It could be significantly more than 1/3. Are their books open for public scrutiny?

[EMME]

OK Niche, I discovered the discrepency. I was not defining Midtown correctly. So yes, Midtown is part 3 and part 4th wards. I got my ward boundaries right, just not my midtown boundaries.

[barracuda]

...so you're OK if all the crooks, cripples, and retarded are segregated into one neighborhood?

How enlightened!

Niche, so you assume everyone with a low income is either a criminal or is physically or mentally debilitated? How enlightened indeed.

[TheNiche]

Niche, so you assume everyone with a low income is either a criminal or is physically or mentally debilitated? How enlightened indeed.

You stated:

I personally don't have a problem with mixing different income groups in one district, assuming they are generally law abiding employable citizens.

Your assumption poses a problem. It is an undisputed fact that crime occurs with greater frequency in neighborhoods populated by poor people. Also, try going on the sex offender registry and looking at the map to see where people convicted of sex crimes live. It is also an undisputed fact that cripples and retards (people who are not employable) have a disproportionate tendency to live amongst poor people because they are themselves poor.

Correct me if I misinterpreted you, but it sounds to me like you'd be OK with working poor people living as neighbors but that you don't want the criminals, cripples, or retards coming along for the ride. So what is to happen to the criminals, cripples, and retards (and their hapless kids) as the working poor are integrated into better neighborhoods? These are the most at-risk components of society, but you're talking about systematically segregating them into enclaves with people just like themselves, reinforcing the same unsuccessful behaviors within that subculture.

[barracuda]

You stated:

Your assumption poses a problem. It is an undisputed fact that crime occurs with greater frequency in neighborhoods populated by poor people. Also, try going on the sex offender registry and looking at the map to see where people convicted of sex crimes live. It is also an undisputed fact that cripples and retards (people who are not employable) have a disproportionate tendency to live amongst poor people because they are themselves poor.

Correct me if I misinterpreted you, but it sounds to me like you'd be OK with working poor people living as neighbors but that you don't want the criminals, cripples, or retards coming along for the ride. So what is to happen to the criminals, cripples, and retards (and their hapless kids) as the working poor are integrated into better neighborhoods? These are the most at-risk components of society, but you're talking about systematically segregating them into enclaves with people just like themselves, reinforcing the same unsuccessful behaviors within that subculture.

Niche, you read a lot into my comments. Physically disabled folks can often work just as well as anyone else. And mentally retarded folks are not necessarily poor nor unemployable. And if I must state the obvious, no, I don't want to live near criminals. Poor does not equal criminal and criminal does not equal poor.

But what I do believe is that stuffing every poor person into low income housing in one district creates an atmosphere ripe for encouraging criminal behavior. There are plenty of statistics that show that retailers and other businesses do not want to build in low income (i.e. - less profitable) neighborhoods. Thus, those residents have all the more difficulty buying goods and finding employment. When people are put into a hopeless situation, some of them will inevitably turn to crime, drugs, etc. So, that's part of why I don't think dumping all of Houston's poor people in the third ward is such a good idea.

P.S. - Many of my neighbors are poor. Maybe some of the folks are "cripples" or "retards" as you call them; I haven't surveyed them, but I've had very few issues with crime in over seven years...nothing more than a missing potted plant and bicycle pump. Minor thefts like this can happen anywhere, including well-off suburban neighborhoods far away from any low-income housing. So yes, I'm fine having "poor" or "crippled" or "retarded" neighbors in the mix, and I don't just assume automatically they're criminals as you do.

[TheNiche]

Niche, you read a lot into my comments. Physically disabled folks can often work just as well as anyone else. And mentally retarded folks are not necessarily poor nor unemployable. And if I must state the obvious, no, I don't want to live near criminals. Poor does not equal criminal and criminal does not equal poor.

But what I do believe is that stuffing every poor person into low income housing in one district creates an atmosphere ripe for encouraging criminal behavior. There are plenty of statistics that show that retailers and other businesses do not want to build in low income (i.e. - less profitable) neighborhoods. Thus, those residents have all the more difficulty buying goods and finding employment. When people are put into a hopeless situation, some of them will inevitably turn to crime, drugs, etc. So, that's part of why I don't think dumping all of Houston's poor people in the third ward is such a good idea.

P.S. - Many of my neighbors are poor. Maybe some of the folks are "cripples" or "retards" as you call them; I haven't surveyed them, but I've had very few issues with crime in over seven years...nothing more than a missing potted plant and bicycle pump. Minor thefts like this can happen anywhere, including well-off suburban neighborhoods far away from any low-income housing. So yes, I'm fine having "poor" or "crippled" or "retarded" neighbors in the mix, and I don't just assume automatically they're criminals as you do.

"Disproportionate" is the word of the day. I never made any categorical bright-line statements.

And my preferences are not in question. I frankly don't give a crap who my neighbors are. You do.

[crunchtastic]

"Disproportionate" is the word of the day. I never made any categorical bright-line statements.

Dude. When you start using phrasing like "bright line statements" in regular language, that's a sign you haven't made a PPT for money in a long time.

I wish I could help more.

[barracuda]

"Disproportionate" is the word of the day. I never made any categorical bright-line statements.

And my preferences are not in question. I frankly don't give a crap who my neighbors are. You do.

Of course, it's never you. And indeed, I stated in posts #99 and 105 that I encourage integrating poor rather than isolating them. That was kind of my point all along.

Somehow you take two words to mean a whole lot of things I never actually said nor intended. If I take the "generally employable" part out I guess you're okay, even though that clearly was not the main emphasis of the post, and was meant as an inclusive term and not an exclusive term (hence the word "generally"). You added the "cripples" and "retards" and flat out stated that they are not employable and poor, without actually showing any statistics.

[TheNiche]

Dude. When you start using phrasing like "bright line statements" in regular language, that's a sign you haven't made a PPT for money in a long time.

I wish I could help more.

"Dude." HAIF is not a PPT. I merely boiled it down to something half-way intelligible as a substitute for a full-on and exhaustive brush-off. Just didn't feel like it.

And I am not a regular person; I am irregular, as you full well know.

[brian0123]

So, that's part of why I don't think dumping all of Houston's poor people in the third ward is such a good idea.

Everyone needs to calm down Remember, EVERY TIRZ formed by petition in Houston must provide 1/3 of its money to low income housing. Midtown is not the only TIRZ doing this, so not all poor people are going to be "dumped" into 3rd ward. Also, we should keep in mind that the third ward wants this. A lot of them fought the Metro University rail line because they are worried about gentrification. Also, a lot of people living in this area are people that have lived there a long time and are retired, etc. and need this sort of protection to stay in their homes/apts (especially if they rent).

I believe it's a win/win for everyone. The third ward gets what they want and Midtown continues to grow and prosper.

[houston_urban_fan]

Also, we should keep in mind that the third ward wants this.

No, Garnet wants this. This is not a debate of where the 30% should be it

Edited June 3, 2009 by houston_urban_fan

[EMME]

No, Garnet wants this.

Garnet gets elected, so one can assume his constituents support this. I am not one of his constituents, and I support it.

[houston_urban_fan]

Garnet gets elected, so one can assume his constituents support this. I am not one of his constituents, and I support it.

Sorry but that is a logical fallacy. By using that logic you are saying that a politicians constituents approve of all actions regardless of if they are public or private. Even if the actions are public maintaintaing your elected office is not proof of unanimous constituent approval. Garnet once punched a principal of a Montessori school. Should I deduce that the public is okay with punching principals (at least in Garnet

[brian0123]

Midtown suffers because the money spent to hold land for 10 years could have been spent to improve infrastructure in Midtown versus being wasted to outbid other parties interested in 3rd ward land.

Infrastructure is being improved as we speak. Elgin has come along nicely. McGowen is a crazy mess right now because of the work being done on it. Gray is going to be next.

[EMME]

Sorry but that is a logical fallacy. By using that logic you are saying that a politicians constituents approve of all actions regardless of if they are public or private. Even if the actions are public maintaintaing your elected office is not proof of unanimous constituent approval. Garnet once punched a principal of a Montessori school. Should I deduce that the public is okay with punching principals (at least in Garnet's district) based on his re-election?

I didn't say unanimous approval, but indicates a lack of disapproval. Other than on this board, I have heard no lobbying against this TIRZ or campaigning against Garnet Coleman on this issue.

[houston_urban_fan]

Infrastructure is being improved as we speak. Elgin has come along nicely. McGowen is a crazy mess right now because of the work being done on it. Gray is going to be next.

Yes infrastructure has been improved, thanks in a large part to Federal Matching funds. Just imagine how far along the process would be if the funds AND Federal Matching funds had been utilized.

I'm sure that the people on the two Midtown boards who actually care are doing their best despite the actions of those angry at how far Midtown has progressed. I wholeheartedly believe in the benefits of a diverse population, that is why I moved to Midtown. So if one of the charters of the neighborhood is to create a diverse population, what do you say to a person, especially a Politian who seeks to maintain a neighborhood's racial purity? That is sick.

[ihop]

http://www.houstonmidtown.com/midtown.cfm?a=cms,c,16,3

Midtown Redevelopment Authority meetings are open to the public, and their previous agendas are published on this site. I'm not sure how easy it would be to find out where their money is going, but you can easily register any feedback you have with them more directly.

[EMME]

I am all for diversity in a big big way. In my opinion, that diversity INCLUDES low income. Keeping low income housing is not about black or white or any other particular race, creed or religion. It is about keeping affordable housing in the inner city neighborhoods. Who is making this about race?

[kylejack]

The boundaryline between 3rd and 4th wards is Main St on each and every map that shows the wards. When I am thinking midtown, I am thinking the apts near Gray and Bagby. Where is your Midtown?

Midtown goes all the way to 59.

This should help: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=29.74165&lon...amp;m=a&v=2

[EMME]

Midtown goes all the way to 59.

This should help: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=29.74165&lon...amp;m=a&v=2

Thanks, Got that a couple of posts ago. Need to get out of this tunnel sometimes.