16 Comment

• dag April 7, 2015 at 9:23 am

  So Hugs and Donuts opened 10 months after the kickstarter ended. Offering donuts for the low low price of $2 and above each.

  So guessing that they spent almost all the money raised on rent and renovations while they were setting up, and the fact that 90% of their customers are still waiting for their ‘free donuts for life’ card, how do they expect to stay open?
• htownproud April 7, 2015 at 9:28 am

  the article says 2301 S. Main, but i think it should be 2301 Main
• WHO DAT April 7, 2015 at 10:15 am

  Hellz yeah, a clock tower on top of an apartment-building in a “new urbanist” development. Never seen one of those before!
• they the username April 7, 2015 at 12:42 pm

  Why doesn’t Hugs and Donuts have vegan donuts?

  Also, are we sure they aren’t a drug front?
• Old School April 7, 2015 at 1:16 pm

  Wow. Give the poor guys at Hugs and Donuts a break already. They have only been open for a day or two. They put together this store on a shoe string and got jerked around by the City causing the opening to be repeatedly delayed. I haven’t been, but have heard rave reviews so far. Would you rather a title loan shop or a Quiznos?
• Dana-X April 7, 2015 at 1:28 pm

  Metro needs to sell the 15 acres to the highest bidder instead of becoming a party to the artificial insemination of the mid-loop in order to give birth to more affordable housing, when in reality affordable housing is everywhere in both the inner and mid loops. The baby that is being suckled at the government teat is actually born of a subtle sentiment of class envy and is really one where lower-income people feel that “opportunity” means giving them access to desirable areas at discount rates because they’re deserving victims and the public facilitators of this idea get to feel good. A win-win for the consenting adults involved.
• Robert Boyd April 7, 2015 at 2:42 pm

  Old School, I don’t begrudge Hugs and Donuts the right to start their business there. I just regret that it means one less possible location for Mattress Firm.
• Higher Density April 7, 2015 at 3:29 pm

  @Dana-X The state of Kansas might be a place you should consider relocating to. Affordable housing must be integrated into the entire city so that those on the benefits as well as those that are not are all assimilated into a single, cohesive community. Relegating the ones in need into one area simply sets them up for failure as well as then people like yourself will be eternally pointing fingers at “those” people, maligning and discriminating against them. Affordable housing is probably too big of an issue for you to handle.
• matx April 7, 2015 at 4:52 pm

  The stretch of Pinemont where the park and ride was located is a pretty mixed bag – it’s on the stretch from Antoine to 290: HISD has a bus barn, there is a public library, some light industrial, dirt and firewood vendors, a Lutheran Church, a relatively new Perry Homes development, large apartment complexes that comprise a mix of incomes and criminal activity (a few years ago a resident at one complex shot and killed a person from their balcony breaking into his/her auto-why the his/her?-one of the tenants was not supposed to own a firearm due to past criminal record so there was some question as to who actually shot the person; no charges were brought), a stable or two which may be gone now, gas stations, a Shipley’s, a Food Town in a retail complex with a vet, Mexican restaurant, Payless, liquor store, nail salon etc. It is adjacent to Forest Pines (an early 1960s?) a subdivision of 3 and 4 bedroom homes and Clifton Middle School. It isn’t exactly an exclusively single familiy residential area to begin with.
• Fernando April 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm

  OldSchool, I spent $4.50 on an apple fritter and cinnamon twist today. Prices are a bit steep in my opinion. I’m still giving them another chance, but I don’t know many people that wanna spend that much per donut.
• Houstonreader April 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm

  When, for instance, the mortgage deduction is eliminated from our tax code and homeowners no longer receive such perks over renters, I will take a second look at Dana-X’s bigoted rant about class envy and victimhood.
• ZAW April 8, 2015 at 12:49 am

  Generally, Dana-X, if you question any aspect of affordable housing policy or practice, you are a bigot. Just so you know. I’ve been called some awful things myself.
  .
  @HigheDensity: yes, that’s absolutely true. In an ideal world, affordable housing would be spread out. Mixed-income neighborhoods are better for the poor than to be isolated in ghettos. But we’re never going to get there with the current policies and practices. Here in Houston we really don’t have a shortage of affordable housing. Our problems are 1: much of our affordable housing is deteriorated and suffers from serious safety, sanitation, and crime problems, and 2: much of our affordable housing is agglomerated together in a handful of poor neighborhoods.
  .
  National policy is to build affordable housing in middle class and wealthy areas. But the elephant in the room, to me, is: what about reintegrating those poor neighborhoods, so that they, too, are mixed? How can we think we’re ever going to have socio-economically mixed neighborhoods, if a few lucky poor people get to move to opportunity, but most of them are stuck in the old ‘hoods, with no investment or improvement?
  .
  All of that said, Hardy Yards is a good project, but it’s only one project. In a City the size of Houston, it’s a drop in the bucket. It will help a few disadvantaged people live in a part of town where they might not otherwise be able to. But it will do nothing to address the much larger problem of deteriorated, crumbling housing in isolated neighborhoods. To me, that’s a real shame.
• ZAW April 8, 2015 at 1:09 am

  As far as the Pinemont Park and Ride sale goes. I would of course defer to neighbors as to whether they want public housing near their homes. It’s worth noting they there are already many affordable housing options in the area. I see several large, older apartment complexes just the other side of 290. It means that, to an outsider you’d probably think “well, what’s one more affordable housing complex? But is this really going to help integrate affordable housing into middle class neighborhoods? And what about those other complexes? Why not improve them?
• TheNiche April 8, 2015 at 3:46 am

  Hopefully there is some way to be assured that the housing authority is going about site selection in a way that advances their mission, which as stated is: “To improve lives by providing quality, affordable housing options and promoting education and economic self-sufficiency.” I’m not sure that this site achieves those premises unless the land deal is so favorable that it is undermining METRO’s mission.

  Although the open bidding suggestion is my first instinct as well, I think we have to be realistic about that requirement. It would still leave some room for a lot of monkeying around about who out of the bidders is actually able to close the deal in a timely manner. Also, there are times when an inter-governmental sale is truly necessary and desirable, and I’m not sure that an attempt at establishing open bidding as public policy would address all such contingencies.

  So…this deal is suspicious, but we have to be realistic. At the very least as a matter of policy, I think that there should be an appraisal requirement. It shouldn’t necessarily be an easy hurdle, because obviously the appraisal process can be corrupted as well. But that’s just wishing and wishes don’t count for much. In the meantime, the person that appoints all of the housing authority commissioners and most of the METRO board members is the mayor of Houston. Parker is the only elected person that is sufficiently powerful enough to be accountable here and that might hold any sway over what these entities do; and although she’s term-limited, maybe just maybe she’ll give a damn. Complain virulently and in every venue. That’s my advice.
• Spoonman. April 8, 2015 at 7:23 am

  Higher Density, have you been to Houston? Affordable housing is integrated thoroughly into the city.
• Houstonreader April 11, 2015 at 9:14 am

  @ZAW: your comment is a facile dismissal of the attitudes involved here. On the one hand, we dole out perks to homeowners without question; on the other, we castigate subsidized, low-income housing in moral terms (Dana-X’s mention of “class envy” and “feel good” motives, for example) and attack the poor as opportunistic. So, in one comment, Dana-X unwittingly applies a double-standard and patronizes all involved.

  That’s not simply “questioning affordable housing,” as you say; that’s political talking points. And you jump on the bandwagon.