Reefmonkey

My dad made it down to the West End late last week. We've had a house in Pirates' Cove (the bay side) since 1983. We had just driven pilings when Alicia hit.

My dad and a couple of other guys with houses down there hired a fishing guide (dad didn't want to take his 27' Grady in the debris-strewn waters) who charged them $400 a head.

Our house fared pretty well. Lost a fair number of shingles and the roof leaked, allowing water damage to the ceilings of a few rooms. New sheetrock will be needed there. The garage and a small bathroom are all we had built on the ground floor, and both of those were trashed. The walls are built to blow out in a storm surge, and they did that, so we have a jumbled mess of fishing rods, paint cans, life vests, etc. strewn across our yard and some of our neighbors. I kept my kayaks in the garage. My dad found one of my kayaks in a pile with a bunch of other kayaks down the street, but unharmed. Another kayak is nowhere to be found. All in all we count ourselves pretty lucky, but our fortune was Bolivar's misfortune when the storm veered east a little.

My take on what will become of Galveston now.......

I remember in the mid 80s, Galveston had just suffered a hurricane hit, and then there was a regional economic slowdown and poor housing market. Going down to our bay house in those days, sometimes it seemed like we almost had the Island to ourselves, even during the summer (at least during the week). Sure, there weren't a lot of businesses open on the Island back then, but what we really came to the Island for was still there. The beach was still there. The bay for watersports was still there. The natural beauty was still there, and all this was more enjoyable because it was less crowded.

Now don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed a lot of the development on Galveston. Moody Gardens is great. The revitalization of Post Office Street is great. There are a lot of great little new restaurants. Unfortunately, though, while the first wave of revitalization of Galveston was good, these pioneers - independent stores, independent restaurants, etc. - were pushed out in the late 90s and early 00s by the likes of Tilman Fertita. Great restaurants like Fisherman's Wharf next to the Elissa got bought out and became just thinly disguised Landry's. Hill's Pier 19 became a freaking Joe's Crab shack. The Strand Brewery became a Fuddruckers. The stores alone the Strand were on the way up for a while, but then the coming of the Carnival cruise ships brought the NASCAR crowd, and the junk shops selling lewd t-shirts to them. Even on my end of the island, the atmosphere had changed some. Signs touting planned high-rise condominiums are right outside our subdivision. High rise condominiums class with the character of the West End. For 20 years my reasonably-sized vacation home had an unobstructed view of the bay across an area George Mitchell had always kept vacant and allowed to be a de facto wildlife sanctuary. Of course, when Mitchell sold our subdivision, the new development company immediately divided that land up into lots, and on each lot built an oversized monstrosity is far larger than the old neighborhood building restrictions would have allowed us to build our house, totally blocking our view. These houses are built larger than they can be insured.

Perhaps, just as in the 80s, a hurricane hit and a close-by economic and real estate slowdown will clean up Galveston a little. I do fear the possibility that only those with the big money will go back in, but what I hope is that the aftermath of Ike will scare off those greedy developers only looking to make a quick buck who have cheapened and commercialized the Island. I hope it will scare off insurers and investors who would be needed to back a high rise condominium on the West End, and only those who really understand and love the Island for what it is enough to take the risk will stay.

In the short term, the Galveston I love will not be diminished. Sure, some of the restaurants I have come to enjoy may not reopen, or may not be as good as pre-Ike, but that will just push me to do what I really enjoy most - stay on the West End, cook for myself, enjoy the solitude, the bay, the escape from rushing to restaurants. Fall is in many ways my favorite times to be down there, and so I hope to get in a few fall weekends even this year.

As far as the loss of the Balinese Room goes, that place was just a rotting shadow of what it once had been. There was forever discussion of what would become of it. In a way Ike dealt it a mercy-killing. As much as I love to see old historic structures preserved, sometimes they must disappear. Would we really want or need the Crystal Palace to still be around, a mouldering and disused momument to a bygone age? Better to remember it as part of the lore of Galveston past than see it rot away. Same for the Balinese Room.

Cyclists don't irk me nearly as much as all the !#$%^&*() jaywalkers we have in Westchase now.

Seems like there's some sort of pride in walking down the STRIPE IN THE MIDDLE OF WILCREST.

(Sorry for yelling. They really p!ss me off.)

Where in Wilcrest? There is one really agressive panhandler that works Wilcrest, alternating between the corners of Westheimer and Briar Forest. Blonde guy, short curly hair. track marks on his arms. Kind of a scruffy, whispy beard. Overall you'd think he's in his forties, but I bet underneath the roughness he could be in his early 30s. He started harassing me and screaming at me because I didn't make eye contact while I was waiting at the light. I called the cops, and he disappeared for a while, but is back.

Very interesting. I had no idea a bike even had to be registered. I just ride my bike in my neighborhood, and along the Terry Hershey Trail.

I'm certainly glad this ordinance is not enforced.

Douglas MacArthur, who had the authority to throw soldiers in the stockade for insubordination, said "never issue an order you can't enforce", which is why he did not issue anti-fraternization orders in occupied Japan. If MacArthur knew that it was bad news to issue petty orders, than Houston city hall obviously knows not to enforce such a pointless ordinance. We have enough problem getting HPD to be a competent police force that can provide for the public safety. We don't need to take away from cops' time to have them enforce an ordinance that has no impact on public health or safety, and was only passed as another revenue generator.

As an avid kayaker, I really take umbrage at state and local governments' greedy attempts to steal more money from citizens by trying to require us to pay registration fees for nonmotorized means of transportation. We aren't dangerous to anyone but ourselves, we aren't putting a burden on infrastructure, most of us don't use public ramps, yet every couple of years I and like-minded citizens have to band together and write letters to the Texas legislature every time the state "studies" the possibility of making us register our kayaks. Most people with motorboats have 1, most people with kayaks have multiple ones. I have 3 myself. Many of us get into kayaking because the boats are cheaper to buy and cheaper to run and maintain than powerboats, we don't need triple the registration fees that powerboaters have. They should be encouraging, not discouraging, people from using a form of transportation that encourages people to get exercise, does not pollute, and does not use gasoline by not taxing us. It's the exact same thing with bikes.

I am done with the club life, . It is nice to be close to restaurants and Memorial park.

Blackfield,

If that's the case, I really recommend west side. Up until 2006 I was an innerlooper, living in West U. I had outgrown the club scene, but part of me dreaded moving to suburbia where the restaurant choices would be Joes Crab Shack or Macaroni Grill.

Fortunately, moving to the west side didn't turn out to be that way. There are all sorts of great little non-chain restaurants right around me. Even walking distance, there are two indian restaurants, two japanese restaurants, two casual italian restaurants, one upscale italian, a lebanese restaurant, a Russian cafe, a Vietnamese restaurant, and more I'm probably forgetting. In about a 5-mile radius there are several good mediterranean restaurants, including Cafe Caspian a great Persian restaurant, several great Japanese restaurants (I go to japan at least twice a year, so I know good japanese), a great Spanish restaurant with tapas and more called Rioja, french restaurants, you name it, the west side has any kind of ethnic food you can get in town, and for some genres the choices are better, because of the far Bellaire chinatown, korean enclave on Long Point, Indians and middle easterners who settled out here, etc.

I still sometimes miss running at memorial park, just for old times sake, but Terry Hershey Park and Barbara Bush park, and Bear Creak park together have everything Memorial has and more.

Blackfield,

I live in Ashford Forest, NE corner of Dairy-Ashford and Memorial. Since I have filed an HCAD tax protest, I currently have access to actual sale prices in my neighborhood. Average sale price over the last two years for a 1-story, 4 bedroom, 2200 sq.ft. home is $272K.

Note if you are looking at Ashford Forest, there are parts to it. The part south of Buffalo Bayou has lower-priced houses and is zoned for HISD. The part I am in is north of the bayou and zoned for SBISD (same district Rummel Creek is in). My part blends seamlessly into Nottingham Forest - you wouldn't even know they are considered different neighborhoods.

O'Connor isn't always Johnny-on-the-spot. I got the same letter you described last year a week after my protest hearing.

Tell me about it with O'Conner not being Johnny-on-the-spot. I looked into using them last year, and had a pretty bad experience that will keep me from ever using them. Last year I filled out O'Conner's online form showing my interest in having them represent me the same day I filed my protest. Didn't hear from them, didn't hear from them, didn't hear from them - then realized I was going to be in Japan for work for two weeks, including the day of my hearing. I called HCAD and got my hearing pushed back to right after I got back from Japan. While I was still in Japan, got an email from my secretary telling me O'Conner called for me. This was several days after my initially scheduled date, and it was the first time I had heard from them. I got back from Japan on a saturday, with my rescheduled hearing the following monday. I found in my mail a packet from O'Conner that had been postmarked the previous thursday. I was supposed to fill that out with all the information on my house, sign an agreement, and get it back to them. Forget it, I would handle my protest myself. I got to HCAD that monday, checked in, the woman could not find me in the system, even though I had my yellow appointment sheet there. Turns out she found O'Conner had gotten attached to my account (even though I had never signed anything with them), and it was a pain getting them detached.

So this year, a couple of weeks ago, I got a message from O'Conner, saying that unless I returned their call, they would assume I had given them the right to represent me. I called and gave them holy hell, told them they better not screw up my account with HCAD again this year.

Okay, I just went to my HCAD informal hearing yesterday. No reduction. I'm not really disappointed, as I expected it to be just a motion I had to go through to get to the ARB, which is next week.

A little background: I live out in the West Memorial area, in one of the 1960s-era Kickerillo neighborhoods in SBISD. I bought my house in June 2006, height of the real estate boom. It was my first time buying a house, I'm a scientist, not a businessman, the guy I bought it from is a CPA and a shrewd horsetrader. My wife and I had been pretty frustrated by the housing market at that time, were kind of desparate to get into something before the new schoolyear, we liked this house, and even though the previous owner didn't budge on stuff as much as we thought he should have after the inspection, we did buy the house. Bottom line - we paid too much for the house. Fortunately, not more than we can afford, and we got a traditional mortgage with a good interest rate, so really, the only time our stupidity at paying too much comes to bite us is when we pay the taxes, which we can afford, but obviously would like to be lower.

The house was built in 1965, about 2200 sq.ft., about 7800 sq. ft. lot. It's one story. We paid 308K. Last year, I went to HCAD, protested the market value, which was what we paid for it, without much confidence (and terribly naive about the process), but got a little moral victory out of getting it lowered to 299K. I thought "fair enough, we just bought it, so what we paid for it is the best they have to go by what it is worth."

Now it is a new year, and not only is there a little more time past since the purchase, the country is at the bottom of a major real estate slump. I figure that HCAD's purpose is not to perpetually punish me for my stupidity as a first time buyer, but assign me a fair and accurate market value for what the average buyer would pay for my house.

Well, this year, the market value for my house was raised to 332K. Appraisal value is 329K A standard 10% increase, maximum homestead exemption will allow them.

There are many houses on my street that are practically identical to mine in age, dimensions, condition. I looked at HCAD's website of this year's appraisals of them, and did a little math. HCAD

Poor assumption #1:

His world view is that he has it all figure out. It's hard to debate with folks like that on topics like gay marriage.

I don't have any worldview figured out, just a consistent ethical system for treatment of my fellow people, based on - the golden rule, the categorical imperative, whatever you want to call it -treating people how I would like to be treated in their situation.

Poor assumption#2:

Libs like that who demand understand seem to always be the least understanding of other's views.

I disagree with your stance on this one issue, so therefore I must be a "Lib". I guess my desire to abolish Social Security and make everyone responsible for their own retirement makes me liberal too? How about my belief that (except for in cases of statutory rape) sex offenders who wish ever to be paroled must submit to chemical castration? How about my opposition to all affirmative action and racial quotas? How about my belief that the US nuclear weapon arsenal is the greatest peacekeeping system every devised, and we should never bow to foreign or domestic demands to reduce or dismantle it?

I have not made any assumptions about your political leanings in other areas, or about you in general, except that you haven't thought this issue through very well. I don't say that because your stance does not jibe with mine. If you disagreed with me and gave any reasons at all, that would be one thing. But you don't do that. You give flippant responses with no logic - sound or flawed - behind them. Example:

Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.

But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders.

Without Breeders there would be no gay people.

Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.

You just state your feelings about the issue. Okay, we get it, you don't like gay marriage. Use pragmatic, legal, heck, even moral arguments to justify them. But you don't do that. When people use pragmatic, legal and/or moral arguments to refute the positions you have forwarded but not supported, you resort to snide comebacks. It is not your position on this issue that subdude is objecting to, or even your dislike of me. Subdude and I don't know each other, I don't think he would particularly care if you insulted me, as long as most of your posts had actual substance to them (no matter how wrong we might think that substance is ). It's the fact that you bring no logic - sound or unsound, so you don't contribute to the discussion. That's what subdude is talking about.

Talk about straw men.

It's best to actually know what a phrase means before you try to use it in an argument, gwilson:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]"

You do seem to be pretty judgemental.

If having a dim view of racism and sexism is judgemental, then yes, I am guilty as charged.

Thank God I don't give a crap about the "internet ether."

A mature response to gently stated criticism.

I got some interesting PMs last night from contributors who have been on HAIF long enough to criticize, who told me my analysis of your partiality was spot-on. Lucky guess for me, I suppose. I'm sure you'll believe whatever you have convinced yourself is the reality, but I'm not the only one who sees through that.

Wait... You laugh at racist jokes because it's the right thing to do?

I'll laugh at this joke just to be polite.

someone's been watching the brady bunch again.

However this one I laugh at because it's actually clever and funny.

You have not been on HAIF long enough or participated in HAIF enough to judge my credibility.

As I said in the other thread:

It's not a criticism of HAIF, specifically, it is a general observation about forums such as these where the moderators participate in discussions as well. It's not just me, there is an ongoing discussion in the internet ether about the phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily mean the moderators can't be fair or aren't being fair, the practice does however make them more vulnerable to the charge of being partisan than moderators who are silent until there is a dispute.

That wasn't what did it. I'm not even sure it was you that got it locked, but that wasn't what caused it.

If it wasn't the "jungle gym" comment or the "dogma" comment, then I can't think of anything else I said, so I guess I'm off the hook.

As I noted in another thread, you haven't been participating here long enough to be all that critical of HAIF.

If you had, you would have seen by now a dozen times the notes that I and the moderators do not patrol every message in every thread. We're more haphazard than that -- like a cop running radar on 288. Some people get caught. Some don't. Don't take it personally.

It's not a criticism of HAIF, specifically, it is a general observation about forums such as these where the moderators participate in discussions as well. It's not just me, there is an ongoing discussion in the internet ether about the phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily mean the moderators can't be fair or aren't being fair, the practice does however make them more vulnerable to the charge of being partisan than moderators who are silent until there is a dispute.

Don't take it personally.

Trust me, I don't, and I hope you did not take my comments personally either.

I laugh at racist and sexist jokes. When they are funny. I don't have the ability to hold back if it' funny. If we can't laugh at our stupidity than we are missing out because there is a lot of it. There is a heritage of it. And sometimes it's funny. Why should I worry if it is going to offend someone who is not standing there next to me with the chance to be offended.

I guess it's the Buddhist in me. The first stone on the eightfold path is Right Thought. Right thought leads to right intention which leads to right speech and right action. Wrong thought leads to wrong intention to wrong speech to wrong action. Refraining from laughing at jokes that are derogatory to other people is as much about keeping your mind free of negative thoughts about other people as it is about defending people who aren't around to defend themselves.

Sorry editor, it's gotten off-topic again. I seem to be a lightning rod for that. Let's get it back on topic:

We've all talked about the benefits that gay couples miss out on because of bans on gay marriage, and potential benefits to tax revenues if we let them get married, but, for the sake of being a Devil's Advocate, what about the flipside to this argument? Maybe in some ways gay couples get a free ride, which is unfair to heterosexual couples? Heterosexual couples are under a lot of pressure to get married, both from inside the relationship, and from family and society in general. Gay couples have no such pressure on them, and have a built-in excuse - "oh, we'd love to get married and start paying the marriage penalty in our taxes...but no one will let us get married. Yeah, that's it." How do you who are opposed to gay marriage feel about this?

Erm, I don't think I know of anyone who laughs at jokes to fit in.

Were you homeschooled in junior high and high school? You were obviously not a member of a fraternity in college. For you to blithly suggest that there aren't people out there who do things to fit in demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of human nature.

Considering there are quite a few jokes regarding ethnicity, sex, etc that are actually funny, I take exception to your notion that anyone that tells a joke on those subjects or laughs at them is somehow inherently wrong. You can choose not to laugh, but you shouldn't judge others.

Notice I did not say I do not laugh at jokes "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", I specifically said I do not laugh at racist or sexist jokes. There is a difference. An example, I recently went fishing with a guide who all day long made jokes about Hillary Clinton being a d*ke. I find calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian to be offensive to lesbians. Oh, and I think d*ke is an ulgy word, too. He also used a choice word in jokes about Obama that starts with N. I explicitly said "racist or sexist". You deliberately changed my wording to a softer "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", - it was dishonest and proves that you couldn't actually come up with a decent retort to what I actually said, so you had to misrepresent what I had to say and attack that misrepresentation.

Also, note that I did not pass any judgement on people who tell racist or sexist jokes, I only said I don't laugh at them. so your sanctimonious accusation of me being judgmental is off the mark as well.

But I am amused that you see yourself as the annointed one with moral clarity on all issues large and small.

Those are your words, not mine. You've created a straw man to attack in an attempt to put me down, I get it.

Me? Annointed? I thought that everyone was supposed to do what they could to be kind to others, and to stand up for others' rights. No, I don't see myself as anything special - I believe that most people are decent and do their best to show others kindness and stand up for their rights. Your attempt to twist my words otherwise is as transparent as it is unoriginal.

However, this does bring up my reasons, as a heterosexual man, for supporting the right of gay people to get married. I remember all the girls I dated before I met my wife who didn't fit - we either had different values, different expectations, a few weren't honest, or sometimes one or the other of us realized we just didn't have enough interests in common. When I met my wife, and as our relationship grew and we realized how compatible we were, how happy we were together, it made us so happy. We knew getting married - not the economic benefits - but the commitment to each other in front of our friends and family, would be a wonderful, joyous thing. Getting married gave us happiness. There are so many natural barriers to lasting happiness with another person. When two people find in each other someone they can be truly happy with, and want to make that next step - it seems unkind, meanspirited to deny them that just because one finds their relationship "icky". When two people have taken on all the trappings of marriage, and others say "don't let them call it marriage" for no real pragmatic reason, but just out of spite, that's not kind.

And if it gives wedding coordinators and caterers a new target market - so much the better.

Oh stop taking yourself so seriously...

I will say that appointing yourself defender of the world's "belittled" is very noble of you.

I also pick up litter when I'm hiking and paddling, and don't laugh along with racist or sexist jokes just to "fit in". I do them because they are the right thing to do (or at least not the wrong thing to do) but I know they are little things. Doesn't make me a "self-appointed defender" of anything - just makes me someone trying to be a decent person, not a saint. Your exaggeration of it is pure defensiveness.

Back on topic, personally, I don't want to see gay marriage result in increased tax revenues. I'd like to see the tax code rewritten so that the marriage penalty is done away with for couples of all persuasions. Well, I guess it would be okay if the increased tax revenues came from more business for wedding coordinators, caterers, florists, etc.

Hmmm, after reading all "editor's" posts about the pope on this thread, I now understand why he locked the California gay marriage thread after I called Benedict 16's comment about noncatholic churchs not being real churchs "dogma." Kind of speaks to the paradox created by picking active participants of an internet discussion board to also be moderators. Hard to have credibility as a impartial referee when you're also a partisan contributor.

Anyhoo.....Would I go see the Pope? Not really. I was raised Catholic, though I'm not one of those exCatholics who hate the church now. I just found a different nonChristian path that was better for me. For anyone who finds Catholicism to be the best path for him, I think that's great. I think any religion or other path is a good one if it encourages you, in the words of Micah "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" Back when I was a little Catholic kid, I thought John Paul II was pretty hot stuff (and I still think he was a very admirable person), so I understand why Catholics tend to like their popes. I don't see anything wrong with the papacy, or with being excited to see the pope. It's just not my thing - not just the pope, but seeing famous people. This past weekend, I was at Discovery Green, and this guy came up to me and asked if there was a burger restaurant in the park - I directed him to the one by the boat pond. My wife said "the guy next to him looked just like Sean Penn." When we got to the Grove, the hostess said "Did you see that Sean Penn is here?!?!" Apparently he came in for some conference on wind power. I had given Sean Penn directions to a restaurant. Didn't really phase me. I'm just not the star-struck type, I guess.

I did actually see John Paul II when I was in high school. We were in Rome, and went to the Vatican, where he was having some kind of audience. We and several thousand other people in St. Peter's Square got to look up and see him up in a balcony. He waved his hand over us, some kind of mass blessing, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.

I vote merge. It's not my thread, but I think it should be.

Previous thread was locked. I suppose that's my fault. Someone said "The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else." and I replied that made him sound like "a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids 'I was here first - go find your own.'" That got me a warning from "editor". Then that same person said that Pope Benedict 16 agrees that gay marriage is "pseudomarriage." I pointed out that Benedict also said noncatholic congregations weren't real churches. I said that was patronizing and demeaning for Benedict to say so. Someone else said "truth is truth. It's not Benedict 16's fault you can't see that." I replied "Dogma is dogma. Unfortunately you can't see that." At that point "editor" locked the thread. So, definitely my fault thread got locked. Sorry about that. It was not my intention, but with all of the intolerant things which had been posted in there for several pages, I don't think it was a big loss.

I'm not gay, and I'm not any kind of Christian, but I don't like to see belittling things said about any group, be they gay people, protestants, catholics, or anyone else, and so I'm going to say something about that. I guess here on HAIF, general comments about groups that border on defamation are tolerated, but my intolerance of intolerance is not tolerated. Try saying that three times fast.

In many states, and even at the US Govt level, government reports have shown that allowing gay people to get married will increase tax revenue, in many times due to the marriage (tax) penalty. The report gets turned in to committee... but no. No need for more tax dollars. Legislators just ignore the black and white facts. This just goes to show that people who get married DON'T get married for the tax benefits ("We can file jointly as married now!") - but all the other reasons.

Well said.

Truth is truth. It's not B16's fault that you can't see it. "Patronizing" and "demeaning" are spin.

You mean "dogma is dogma". Unfortunately you can't see past that.

Notice the captial "C" in "Churches."

It has meaning.

It's patronizing and demeaning any way you try to spin it.

The Pope and Midtown's decree is no different that those who want to rewrite the definition in the first place.

So Benedict XVI says that gay marriage isn't real marriage, so it must be true.

Benedict XVI also said:

Midtown and the Pope decree the definition of marriage. Well guess that settles it. Case closed.

I couldn't have said it any better.