I think the guest was using shorthand by using the shorter name, Houston Metro area. If you take Highway 59 to Sugar Land, there is no longer a space in between that might define where one begins and the other ends. About 12 years ago, I lived in Stafford which is adjacent to Sugar Land to the west and Houston to the northeast. At that time there was a small gap between the two, but that has since been erased. I haven’t been out to Baytown in a long time, but I suspect that a similar growth pattern may have occurred.

I think the fact that the Houston area is on the order of magnitude in population and area of some small New England states may give some listeners some perspective of what that means for Houston’s challenges and capabilities.

ashley: You are one nasty piece of work! We here in Houston have provided a tremendous amount of goods and services to those who came here with nothing or very little. We did not get an “infusion of cash,” we probably lost a lot of money in the process, but we’d be proud to do it again for our neighbors in need. As far as your ignorant remark regarding crime is concerned: The increase in the number of murders that Houston experienced post-Katrina compared to the same period in 2004 was almost exactly the same number that we know were committed by evacuees. That’s just a fact.

Brian Thompson: If you had gone to Google instead of Google Earth, you would have easily found out that the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Statistical Metropolitan Area is only slightly smaller than Massachussetts. Neither of us are qualified to argue the definition of metro area, because I think some of it is pretty bogus and you probably would, too.

I thought the show was good, but you missed a few points. First, not everyone who came here from New Orleans was poor. Many upper- and middle-class people came, too, and a good number have stayed. Some businesses have moved here as well.

Another fact about Houston is that an enormous number of people that live here (I’d guess a majority) were not born here. We don’t have the dominating presence of old patrician families like the Kennedys of Boston. This is because it is a relatively new city, while New Orleans was a fairly well-established older city.

Texans don’t like hand-outs as a rule, but when catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina followed by a stunningly incompetent federal response happens, we have the good judgment to suspend our normal stinginess to those in need.

And, finally, you forgot to mention that Houston is what it is today thanks to a deadly hurricane. In 1900, Galveston was the major port city of Texas until it got destroyed by a hurricane (6,000 – 8,000 dead) and then the Houston Ship Channel was built and Houston became the major city on the Texas Gulf Coast.

As Hurricane Ernesto seems to be forming, we may get the chance to do this all over again.

I don’t want to hear another word about how we should thank Houston; Houston should thank us. The infusion of cash to these border states has increased their revenues and tax base to levels they couldn’t have dreamed of.

Now, to hear them complain about how we’re the ones causing the crime. Thanks Houston.

“The critics and audience will have the final say on whether “Leveesâ€? is the thorough examination that Mr. Lee intends. His views are clear. “What happened in New Orleans was a criminal act,â€? he said, a tragic backhanded slap to poor, black or politically insignificant people. “The levees were a Band-Aid here and a Band-Aid there. In the famous statement of Malcolm X, the chickens came home to roost. Somebody needs to go to jail.â€?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/arts/television/03leve.html?ei=5088&en=f32bd3505694855f&ex=1312257600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9687336/

Spike even seems to suggest that the levees were blown up in order to kill black people. This reminds me of the conspiracy theory that the US instigated the attacks on the WTC towers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020500884.html

“Since Sept. 1, when an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Louisianans resettled in Houston after Hurricane Katrina, evacuees are believed to have been involved in 26 slayings, or nearly 17 percent of all homicides. The cases, according to Houston police, involved 34 evacuees — 19 of them victims and 15 of them suspects.â€?

“Officials are careful not to blame Houston’s recent rise in violent crime solely on Katrina evacuees, saying such statistics were rising last year before the hurricane. They point to what they call the majority of law-abiding Louisianans now living in the city and say the crime rate per thousand for the evacuee population is not greater than it was among Houstonians before the influx of Katrina survivors.â€?

“The addition of the evacuee population has dropped the ratio of police officers per thousand Houstonians to 1.9, compared with 2.3 before Katrina and with the national average of 2.8�

I believe those 26 murders the evacuees were involved in have earned a disproportionate amount of media coverage in this saga. Another factor may be an intent by some to scapegoat the evacuees for a violent crime problem Houston already had, double the national average: http://houston.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

And yes Allison, it looks like crime is rising throughout the country�

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005preliminary/index.htm

“Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported an increase of 2.5 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in 2005�

And how do we know they’re Orleanians? Are they wearing something on their sleeves? Or is just that “you can tell”?

I’d like to see real statistics about the perpetrators of these crimes. Also, murder rates have been rising in many cities. Boston’s is out of control and quite frightening. So, again, is it really the displaced Orleanians or simply a cycle? And do Houstonians really feel this way or is this a national media hype thing?