20thStDad

Ours is 5 years old now and works fine, but looking at it I notice that some areas of the chain appear more dry than others. I want to get up there and grease it, I assume this is a good idea. Is there a certain type of grease I need? Is there any other regular maintenance to garage doors that I should be doing? Any easy activities that can be done to keep it from breaking are worth my time for sure.

How often should I do a coolant flush? I know after a while there is scaling and potential for corrosion, but on newer vehicles (2004 and 2005 is what we have) what's the good standard for flushing and replacing? Also, I've never done it before but it seems like it would be damn easy. Or is this one of those things that's just easier to bring over to Jiffy Lube and have it done?

My argument hasn't changed at all. This is funding sprawl, how far out I don't care. Whether it makes for "better" or "worse" sprawl doesn't really matter to what I'm saying. That's what my first handful of posts on this said. As to what to do with funding, I'm sure there are projects much closer to the city center that could provide benefit to many more people. Yes, as Niche said lots of people live out there and will use it, but do many many more not live inside the beltway and loop who could benefit from other projects? That's all I'm saying.

I'm well past my times of eating out anywhere near 10pm, so if you keep your current valet policy it won't stop us from dropping in during happy hour times. And I like the idea of squeezing more money out of the club rats!

Your point is easily comprehended, but it is also pointless in my opinion. It does not matter to this argument that GP is sprawl to a lesser degree than you contend will happen without it. The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring the absolute fact that this project is directly funding sprawl. It doesn't matter that sprawl would be built farther out without it - according to you that sprawl is universally inevitable and will be built even if this is built, maybe just a little later. The argument is against using THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING, which is what the article was about. The contention in that article was that the anti-sprawl administration is using its stimulus money to pay for sprawl. I don't know if any projects exist that are effectively sprawl-killing - if there are any, I would be for them. But I am sure there are projects intended for the inner city where the majority of residents live. Yeah, lots live way the hell out, but way more live in the center. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

I'm not disagreeing with this. Degrees of sprawl aside, I'm simply saying that using this funding for this project is definitely using this funding to encourage sprawl. The thought is that if this was used in the city instead of 25-30 miles away from it, more people would benefit from whatever it was used for. Holzer's suggestion was improving city traffic flow - I don't know exactly what projects this would be. But I think it's obvious that projects done within the city have the potential of providing benefit to hundreds of thousands to millions, as opposed to the maybe tens of thousands 25-30 miles from town. I don't think we disagree about what sprawl is or that there are different degrees of it. If we disagree about using funding for it, oh well.

Your concept is not difficult at all to understand, I just don't think it means anything to the point of the article or what Holzer is trying to say. Less sprawl is still sprawl. You pointing out that a lighter is smaller than a flamethrower does nothing to the point, both are still fire. Using this money somewhere that isn't in BFE could possibly draw/keep people further in as opposed to pulling them out, which is exactly what this is doing. Tell me if you disagree with how this project lines out: 1. No one lives where this is being built right now 2. When it gets built, neighborhoods will be built out there 3. People will move out there Now your turn, tell me how this funding for this project lessens sprawl. It doesn't. It directly causes it. You act like the ONLY alternative for using the funding on this project would be to fund one even farther out, and that is ridiculous. The point is about what the funding is being used for, not the fact that people will continue to develop out in BFE.

Oh you bet they will diversify. They are planning it right now. No doubt they will ride oil as long as they can, but when the time is right they'll make whatever changes they need to, if they're being run by smart people. We're a couple decades out from this I think, but we'll see it in my lifetime.

Like I said, unless you are claiming the people that will live on GP are coming from farther out than it is, it does not discourage sprawl. It may put sprawl closer in than it would have been but in no way does it discourage sprawl. And I'm not looking to bring any people to where I am, the point is to spend the money where more people can benefit from it. Not so much fewer people can live in BFE.

There are already a ton more people where I am compared to where this is getting done. So, why do this to spite the majority in hopes that a few people will move farther out? Not sure if you even read the article, but this sums up my point, whether it directly benefits me or not:

accommodate = enable = building this does encourage sprawl, that's all I'm saying I'm just agreeing with the article, basically. I'd rather see the funds used closer to the city (selfish, since that's where I live - I'll never get near this road except when on my way to Austin/SA). I really am not concerned about projects that improve sprawl efficiency.

I understand, the point you make is about degrees of sprawl. I just agree with the original post that if the administration is anti-sprawl, and this development is most certainly sprawl encouraging, maybe they should refocus the money on things to bring more people inward. Don't know what that would be, but the answer isn't that nothing would bring more people inward.

That's fine, but I was simply countering other posters points that this development doesn't encourage sprawl. Regardless of whether people were going to move farther out if this isn't developed, people will move out there because it is developed. Therefore it IS sprawl, certainly not the opposite.

Yes. There are more places to live further in, why would you assume that every time someone moves, it is further away from the center of the city? Building things like GP farther out can only encourage people to move farther out. Thus, this encourages sprawl, whether you are for or against sprawl doesn't matter. EDIT: just keep saying "sprawl" to yourself over and over. It gets hard, that is a strange, funny word.

Doesn't this make a huge assumption that people who will move on that stretch of GP would have otherwise moved further out on one of the spokes? It's equally likely they would have moved further in, so I'm not buying that this reduces sprawl. Also, I don't think densification of areas way the hell out there are the same thing as reducing sprawl. I think it IS sprawl. It's just sprawl with slightly less mileage from the city.

And just like that, the first 2 rounds are in the books. Tough 1st rnd for me, missed 11, but like I said before it's the later rounds that count. 15 of 16 in round 2 and I'm sitting at the top. Not feeling great about my pick for champion... I think Memphis-Uconn might be the best game of the tournament, assuming it happens. Those 2 teams are ON.

Ours is down, 5.5%. I'll take it. Land value up 15%, improvements down 12%. Sure, why not.

I'm part of the reason Heights is so far up there. That page is my bookmark. Count me for a dozen times a day on that one. I click View New Posts more though, more than once per visit. What are the most HAIF-ing countries outside the U.S.?

I have one money bracket this year, exactly the same picks as my HAIF bracket. That sucker has 12 of 16 so far, and of course three of my other mess-around brackets have 15 and 14 right. Whatever. Money is made in the late rounds...one year i was only 7 for 16 in round 2, but most importantly those 7 ended up being 7 of 8, then 3 of 4, 2 of 2 and the champion, and I won the pot. Forget first round games, as long as my late round teams don't lose, it's just for fun.

At work with no tv but have internet? Watch games for free at: http://mmod.ncaa.com/?source=mktg_09MMOD_ncaa36 I would be doing this if I wasn't just skipping work altogether starting around lunch.

Those signs mean nothing. I have seen them, but never once have I felt like they actually mean anything. I doubt criminals use them to make decisions. If you're looking to scare off criminals, put a sign up that says everyone in the neighborhood is armed.

Yeah BW3 is the default, I was just wondering if there was some secret awesome place that always has $1 longnecks or sometihng the first day of the tourney. If I find a good place I'll be sure to share.

Any suggestions on where to go early (11am) Thursday for watching games? Any good drink/food specials being advertised? Inner loop/Heights or west Pearland are possibilities, depending on how long I decide to stay at work.

Ha, that's me. I already had a bracket for another group done, so I just joined the HAIF group. I don't feel like filling out another one just for this, and 20thStDad means nothing to the other group I'm in. I suppose I could create another bracket with the same picks...we'll see if I remember to and decide it's worth the time. EDIT: Ok fine I did it. Took 3 whole minutes. Still, there are only 4 of us, people need to step it up!

The only new law we need is one that prohibits whining and getting offended. The entire world is turning into a horribly written tv drama.