Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[barracuda]

Not really. My land accounts for nearly 75% of my appraised value. My new garage is appraised at nearly the value of my entire house. The house itself accounts for only 15% of my appraised value, netting the City $221. By comparison, my neighbor's new house comprises 80% of the appraised value compared to the land. The City nets $1880 annually from his new construction, to my $221. The new Walmart at Northline Mall paid $52,355 in City property taxes alone last year, $206,900 total. And, that one is in the least desirable area. The Silber and Yale locations will likely pay more.

No, my "historic" house is not subsidizing anything. Walmart is.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure how one can accurately compare the overall impact to the tax system between a retail supercenter and a single family home. Each places different demands on infrastructure and services. But if we must, how about comparing the real taxes paid on square foot of property? By that method, I pay $1.34 per square foot for my 5000 square foot lot (with homestead exemption). For my rental property, I pay $2.98/sq. ft.

The Dunvale Super Walmart pays $0.61 per square foot of land for their 889,593 sq. ft. property, and the S Post Oak regular Walmart pays even less, $0.40/sq. ft. So, I am paying as much as 7x the amount of property taxes relative to property size compared to an existing Walmart.

And consider that appraisals for supercenters are heavily weighted towards the land value. For the Dunvale location, it's 83% for land vs. 17% for the improvements. In comparison, my Heights property appraisal value is weighted 37% for land and 63% for improvements. So, essentially a house on a 5000 square foot Heights lot is more valuable per square foot than a Walmart parking lot or even the store itself.

[barracuda]

Your home is no more historic, and no more important, than my generic 1952 Timbergrove ranch. It's just older. Of course, for those stupid enough to support the concept of "historic" districts, karma will appear at the suitable moment.

That's a subjective opinion. According to the city, it is historic. Regardless, I was mostly joking about getting additional tax abatement from the city. Mostly.

WalMart isn't receiving public assistance. in fact, the City is going to be able to make necessary infrastructure improvements ahead of schedule due to the generosity of the developer in funding those improvements. I really don't understand the hatred for WalMart. It's a business. Don't like them, don't shop there. Perhaps it's jealousy that someone else is more successful. in any case, WalMart has as much right to operate as anyone else.

You didn't read the comment. I didn't write that Walmart receives public assistance. But many of their employees do. And I'd rather not pay more taxes to compensate for companies like Walmart that don't pay closer to a living wage, all while they're raking in $16B in annual profits. Employees should not have to depend on public assistance programs like Medicaid and food stamps to survive.

You aren't subsidizing WalMart. They are subsidizing you.

See my previous post and the above comment.

[RedScare]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure how one can accurately compare the overall impact to the tax system between a retail supercenter and a single family home.

Remember, we only looked at property taxes. With sales and inventory taxes, Walmart pays $750,000 or more a year in taxes to the city, county and state.

Another, very simple way to guage what is more valuable to the taxing authorities is to look at the City of Houston's annexation policies. They routinely annex commercial areas, while leaving the residential areas unincorporated. The City recently let the Woodlands buy its way out of the ETJ, even though the City had no intention of ever annexing the residents. Why? Commercial establishments pay higher tax rates, more for their water, pay for their own waste removal, and provide their own security. They do not waste city council's time on everything from potholes to tax revenue killing historic districts. They simply make money and pay taxes. The city likes that. No whiny, pissy residents. Just tax revenue.

If you really think that it is debatable who subsidizes who, you need to study the budgets and appraisals closer. It is not even close.

[RedScare]

And consider that appraisals for supercenters are heavily weighted towards the land value. For the Dunvale location, it's 83% for land vs. 17% for the improvements. In comparison, my Heights property appraisal value is weighted 37% for land and 63% for improvements. So, essentially a house on a 5000 square foot Heights lot is more valuable per square foot than a Walmart parking lot or even the store itself.

As I stated earlier, my land accounts for 73% of my appraisal. Either you live in new construction, or you were able to drastically alter your house prior to the historic district designation. It would be virtually impossible for my house to achieve even 50% parity with my land under the new ordinance.

[barracuda]

Remember, we only looked at property taxes. With sales and inventory taxes, Walmart pays $750,000 or more a year in taxes to the city, county and state.

Another, very simple way to guage what is more valuable to the taxing authorities is to look at the City of Houston's annexation policies. They routinely annex commercial areas, while leaving the residential areas unincorporated. The City recently let the Woodlands buy its way out of the ETJ, even though the City had no intention of ever annexing the residents. Why? Commercial establishments pay higher tax rates, more for their water, pay for their own waste removal, and provide their own security. They do not waste city council's time on everything from potholes to tax revenue killing historic districts. They simply make money and pay taxes. The city likes that. No whiny, pissy residents. Just tax revenue.

If you really think that it is debatable who subsidizes who, you need to study the budgets and appraisals closer. It is not even close.

I would argue that it's the consumers who pay sales taxes, with the retailer acting as the facilitator. And a new store in an established market like ours will primarily take revenue away from other retailers, so there is not much of a net increase in sales tax revenue. It takes things like population growth, rising salaries, and increased tourism to add real revenue to the area's retail base, not just adding more redundant retailers that borrow customers from one another.

I think the reason the city likes to annex commercial areas is for simplicity and lower risk. The city gains a significant chunk of revenue by dealing with small number property owners who own large tracts of taxable real estate in adjacent areas. Residential, by comparison, is composed of many smaller plots, and of course as you said, noisy homeowners are much more of a hassle to work with, and worse yet, they are voters who could pose a threat to those in office if annexation is not desired.

I do agree that this is more complicated than looking at property tax bills. More than anything, it doesn't account for the impact on public assistance from Walmart employees. Less than half of Walmart employees receive healthcare through their employer, and according to this source, Walmart employees cost taxpayer money for a variety of government programs, at an average cost of $420,750 to taxpayers per store. Those may be primarily federal programs, but regardless of the government entity they are drawing from, it is hard for me to believe that Walmart is subsidizing the public with the massive amount of evidence contradicting this claim.

Edited July 4, 2011 by barracuda

[barracuda]

As I stated earlier, my land accounts for 73% of my appraisal. Either you live in new construction, or you were able to drastically alter your house prior to the historic district designation. It would be virtually impossible for my house to achieve even 50% parity with my land under the new ordinance.

My house was considerably altered in the 30's or 40's with an addition, but most of the improvement value ratio increase is due to a large renovation a few years ago, combined with the smallish lot. Unfortunately, HCAD thinks the renovation added 23% to the value, even though the size only went up 200 sq. ft.

[Ross]

I would argue that it's the consumers who pay sales taxes, with the retailer acting as the facilitator. And a new store in an established market like ours will primarily take revenue away from other retailers, so there is not much of a net increase in sales tax revenue. It takes things like population growth, rising salaries, and increased tourism to add real revenue to the area's retail base, not just adding more redundant retailers that borrow customers from one another.

I think the reason the city likes to annex commercial areas is for simplicity and lower risk. The city gains a significant chunk of revenue by dealing with small number property owners who own large tracts of taxable real estate in adjacent areas. Residential, by comparison, is composed of many smaller plots, and of course as you said, noisy homeowners are much more of a hassle to work with, and worse yet, they are voters who could pose a threat to those in office if annexation is not desired.

I do agree that this is more complicated than looking at property tax bills. More than anything, it doesn't account for the impact on public assistance from Walmart employees. Less than half of Walmart employees receive healthcare through their employer, and according to this source, Walmart employees cost taxpayer money for a variety of government programs, at an average cost of $420,750 to taxpayers per store. Those may be primarily federal programs, but regardless of the government entity they are drawing from, it is hard for me to believe that Walmart is subsidizing the public with the massive amount of evidence contradicting this claim.

What would be the plight of the workers if they weren't working at WalMart? Would they be using even more public assistance? Could it be that they woek at WalMart because it's the best job they can find? If WalMart paid higher wages and more benefits, would the workers attracted be of a higher caliber, thus leaving the current employees back on the dole?

[lockmat]

So I have not been paying attention to this thread at all and the last two pages are basically nothing....has this thing broken ground yet?

[samagon]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure how one can accurately compare the overall impact to the tax system between a retail supercenter and a single family home. Each places different demands on infrastructure and services. But if we must, how about comparing the real taxes paid on square foot of property? By that method, I pay $1.34 per square foot for my 5000 square foot lot (with homestead exemption). For my rental property, I pay $2.98/sq. ft.

The Dunvale Super Walmart pays $0.61 per square foot of land for their 889,593 sq. ft. property, and the S Post Oak regular Walmart pays even less, $0.40/sq. ft. So, I am paying as much as 7x the amount of property taxes relative to property size compared to an existing Walmart.

And consider that appraisals for supercenters are heavily weighted towards the land value. For the Dunvale location, it's 83% for land vs. 17% for the improvements. In comparison, my Heights property appraisal value is weighted 37% for land and 63% for improvements. So, essentially a house on a 5000 square foot Heights lot is more valuable per square foot than a Walmart parking lot or even the store itself.

I appreciate you are disappointed that different areas of Houston pay different property tax rates, and that value of the land and improvements on the land per square foot are different, you should point some anger my way too, cause I pay right at about $0.50 per square foot, that's a discussion for a different day though.

I think judgement should be held on this comparison until the walmart is built and they pay some property taxes for that location, or maybe you can find someones house close to the dunvale, or SPO walmart for a valid comparison of tax rates for the area, and value of the property per square foot, rather than two very different areas of Houston. heh, unless maybe you're saying that Dunvale and SPO are the same as the Heights? In which case, you shouldn't be surprised they are building a walmart.

[heights]

You didn't read the comment. I didn't write that Walmart receives public assistance. But many of their employees do. And I'd rather not pay more taxes to compensate for companies like Walmart that don't pay closer to a living wage, all while they're raking in $16B in annual profits. Employees should not have to depend on public assistance programs like Medicaid and food stamps to survive.

Well, if Walmart is so bad, how about ExxonMobil? They made $30B in net income and they only keep 83,000 people employed. Walmart may not pay high wages, but if they went under, there would be 2.1 million people with no job at all.

Edited July 4, 2011 by heights

[20thStDad]

So I have not been paying attention to this thread at all and the last two pages are basically nothing....has this thing broken ground yet?

This thread is not about construction or development. It is for whining and philosophical ramblings between groups of people who will never hear what the other says.

[barracuda]

Well, if Walmart is so bad, how about ExxonMobil? They made $30B in net income and they only keep 83,000 people employed. Walmart may not pay high wages, but if they went under, there would be 2.1 million people with no job at all.

What would be the plight of the workers if they weren't working at WalMart? Would they be using even more  public assistance? Could it be that they woek at WalMart because it's the best job they can find? If WalMart paid higher wages and more benefits, would the workers attracted be of a higher caliber, thus leaving the current employees back on the dole?

If Walmart is taking sales from other retailers, is it possible that those retailers will cut jobs or shut down completely to account for the revenue loss? Or perhaps those workers would prefer one of the 200,000 jobs lost to China over just a 5 year period as a direct result of Walmart's trade deficit with the country, most of them manufacturing jobs that typically come with higher wages and benefits than the service jobs that replaced them.

I appreciate you are disappointed that different areas of Houston pay different property tax rates, and that value of the land and improvements on the land per square foot are different, you should point some anger my way too, cause I pay right at about $0.50 per square foot, that's a discussion for a different day though.

I think judgement should be held on this comparison until the walmart is built and they pay some property taxes for that location, or maybe you can find someones house close to the dunvale, or SPO walmart for a valid comparison of tax rates for the area, and value of the property per square foot, rather than two very different areas of Houston. heh, unless maybe you're saying that Dunvale and SPO are the same as the Heights? In which case, you shouldn't be surprised they are building a 

I'm glad you appreciate it, but I'm not disappointed in appraisal-based property taxes. I just find it strange that some would argue that Walmart subsidizes taxpayers, when they pay a lower property tax per square foot than a single family home even with exemption, and also rely heavily on government programs for their employees to get by.

Edited July 5, 2011 by barracuda

[Ross]

Property tax per square foot is a meaningless number.

[heights]

According to KTRK, RUDH is now suing the city of Houston to stop this development.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8397633

[JJxvi]

How RUDH.

[Materene]

How RUDH.

I will never understand how the neighborhood I lived in over 50 years ago is now so important to be called historical. Looking at most of the past business establishments that still have structures standing things don't seem to have been embellished equally when it was decided that it should all be historical. The Blvd was then and should now be the only zone that is historical, other than the Blvd there wasn't anything out there in the early 1900's. I once remember touring the inside of the large two story a couple blocks down from Hamilton Jr High, that home was truly historical and this was on or around 62 that we toured the house with other friends and family. I love old photos in the early 1900's showing people's yards with nice wrought iron fences and cows in the front yard, if they could look down I'm sure they are laughing at all the bickering. Progress is like a steam roller and everything should be considered temporary, our lives are much shorter than Progress. Priorities are not as important as they once were, we all have too much time to dislike everything around us.

[samagon]

knife, nose, face, spite.

[samagon]

edit button is missing from my post above? but I wish to expand on my 'cut off your nose to spite your face' comment.

lets look at this from a purely financial standpoint.

Sue and lose. Does the city have to pay attorney fees? time wasted. Low amount of property tax from location, Low amount of property tax from adjoining locations, no sales tax from location while bickering about this. So yeah, city loses more money.

Sue and win. City has to pay attorney fees. Land stays fallow for however long, builders probably will leave it alone for years to come cause they don't want to deal with NIMBYs, so low property taxes from site and surrounding, no sales taxes for however long. No road improvements get done.

Either way, the CITY IS GOING TO LOSE MORE MONEY THAN IF THE LAWSUIT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!! It's so plainly obvious that this is not being done because the people suing are concerned about MY tax dollars, and now you are JACKING WITH MY TAX DOLLARS, out of spite because of your selfishness.

Congrats RUDH you are costing me higher taxes. If I didn't agree with your practices before, I really hate you now. Stay away from my neighborhood, I will be glad to put signs out and perhaps even occupy something as a demonstration showing my anger.

This is what I will be putting on my sign:

Responsible Urban Development Houston Irresponsibly Wastes Tax Dollars!

Edited October 20, 2011 by samagon

[VicMan]

The best way to oppose the "Responsible Urban Development for Houston" is a protest outside of their headquarters. Unfortunately http://rudh.org/ only indicates a PO box and not an office address

However a WHOIS (a search of the parameters of a website registration) reveals the registrant is "Christopher Athans" - So we know the name of one person responsible, and can send negative feedback/can protest against this person's actions

If the address of an organization is also the owner's residence, would it be acceptable to hold a picketing drive outside of the said residence?

edit button is missing from my post above? but I wish to expand on my 'cut off your nose to spite your face' comment.

lets look at this from a purely financial standpoint.

Sue and lose. Does the city have to pay attorney fees? time wasted. Low amount of property tax from location, Low amount of property tax from adjoining locations, no sales tax from location while bickering about this. So yeah, city loses more money.

Sue and win. City has to pay attorney fees. Land stays fallow for however long, builders probably will leave it alone for years to come cause they don't want to deal with NIMBYs, so low property taxes from site and surrounding, no sales taxes for however long. No road improvements get done.

Either way, the CITY IS GOING TO LOSE MORE MONEY THAN IF THE LAWSUIT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!! It's so plainly obvious that this is not being done because the people suing are concerned about MY tax dollars, and now you are JACKING WITH MY TAX DOLLARS, out of spite because of your selfishness.

Congrats RUDH you are costing me higher taxes. If I didn't agree with your practices before, I really hate you now. Stay away from my neighborhood, I will be glad to put signs out and perhaps even occupy something as a demonstration showing my anger.

This is what I will be putting on my sign:

Responsible Urban Development Houston Irresponsibly Wastes Tax Dollars!

Edited October 20, 2011 by VicMan

[TheNiche]

The best way to oppose the "Responsible Urban Development for Houston" is a protest outside of their headquarters. Unfortunately http://rudh.org/ only indicates a PO box and not an office address

However a WHOIS (a search of the parameters of a website registration) reveals the registrant is "Christopher Athans" - So we know the name of one person responsible, and can send negative feedback/can protest against this person's actions

If the address of an organization is also the owner's residence, would it be acceptable to hold a picketing drive outside of the said residence?

Christopher J. Athans lives in an ugly beige townhome at 1415 Thompson Street (the southwest corner of Thompson & Kohler). It is part of a townhome complex that replaced lower-density development. Its development has created more traffic. Mr. Athans has acted irresponsibly and now attempts to create barriers to those who would do the same. He is a hypocrite. He should be made aware of that fact.

[Porchman]

I would like some legal clarity on this. RUDH has filed a lawsuit to determine if the City of Houston has acted within the law. Shouldn't RUDH be seeking the Attorney General's opinion? Maybe they expect that this is going to be kicked out on appeal and they'll have their day with the Supremes (without Donna Summer, of course). Attorneys of all opinions on the issue, please enlighten us.

[RedScare]

Their lawyer works out of his house, and has been licensed to practice law for less than 3 years. However, he has managed to become proficient in no less than 8 different areas of practice in that short period of time. My first thought when I saw this lawsuit was, 'I wonder if Target is involved?' Now, I'm thinking, 'Probably not.'

I wonder what the over/under is for when this suit gets tossed on summary judgment? Or better yet, standing. RUDH is not an aggrieved party. I think you need to be a city resident at least.

[Porchman]

Redscare: Setting aside your concerns for plaintiff's counsel, can you be more specific on the standing issue?

[TheNiche]

Redscare: Setting aside your concerns for plaintiff's counsel, can you be more specific on the standing issue?

From RUDH's website, "In the lawsuit, RUDH alleges that the 380 Agreement with Ainbinder Heights LLC does not promote economic development, as required by the Texas Local Government Code."

In order to be aggrieved, RUDH would need to be affected in some way. They are not a taxpayer, a resident, or even a participant in the local economy. RUDH has nothing to lose from the 380 Agreement. Its members might plausibly have a dog in the fight as individuals. The organization as an entity does not; it cannot even potentially suffer a loss from which this lawsuit might make it whole.

[RedScare]

I'll take the easy route first, and give the Wikipedia definition.

Edit: This link doesn't work. Google 'Standing' and click on the Wickipedia entry.

To give a simple example, I cannot claim that the police unlawfully entered your house. I do not own your house, I do not live there, and I have no permission to be there. Therefore, I have no standing to complain, even if they found my drugs in your house once inside. Only you have standing in that example.

The same principle applies in civil cases. Non-residents of the City of Houston cannot complain of unconstitutional taxes for instance, unless they own property in Houston subject to the tax. RUDH is not a Houston resident. It is an organization. It is suing on behalf of unnamed third parties. Further, I question whether the 380 agreement causes any imminent harm to individuals. Taxpayer standing on its own does not necessarily give one the right to sue.

This lawsuit is a steep uphill battle, first to even get the opportunity to be heard, but then to prove that this is an unconstitutional use of 380 agreements, and finally, that 380s are themselves unconstitutional. Since the 380 law is itself a constitutional amendment, I just don't see it happening. The statute also gives wide latitude in what cities may do within a 380 agreement, including loans and grants. They must serve a "public purpose". This loophole is so wide you could drive a truck through it. Almost anything can be construed as a "public purpose", but certainly, improving public roads, sidewalks, and landscaping would qualify. And, despite claims of opponents, I am unaware of a prohibition against the use of 380 money within the private development, as long as it promotes and encourages economic development, and serves a "public purpose. That is the whole gripe against this 380...it promotes and encourages economic development that the oponents do not approve of.

That last paragraph goes to the merits of the case, not standing. Essentially, if they somehow show standing, I think they would then get tossed on summary judgment.

EDIT: Just saw Niche beat me to it, but we both are saying the same thing.

Edited October 21, 2011 by RedScare

[TheNiche]

Its time for another happy hour.

[RedScare]

Its time for another happy hour.

Ha! I just PM'd Porchman and said that!

[Porchman]

So, Organization's standing is an issue. What gives an organization standing? Is Plaintiff's other argument valid?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Porchman

[TheNiche]

So, Organization's standing is an issue. What gives an organization standing? Is Plaintiff's other argument valid?

Has the entity been harmed by the unlawful application of a 380 Agreement? This entity has basically no assets or operating revenue, and even if it did, their assets and revenues would be unaffected. The organization has no corporeal existance; it has no psyche; and so claims related to its health or mental anguish won't stick. If it cannot be harmed by the unlawful application of a 380 Agreement, then it has no standing.

Let's say that the organization had an asset on Kohler Street that would have to be taken by eminent domain in order to expand and repave the street. Then the organization has standing to either sue for a restraining order (if the relevant portion of the project is unlawful) or the recovery of the market value of those assets (if the relevant portion of the project is lawful). The purpose of a lawsuit is to make the plantiff whole...not society at large.

RUDH suspects that campaign contributions and procedural breaches in the 380 agreement process are an indication of cronyism. The evidence is largely circumstantial. The two parties that could make a big stink out of this are the City and Ainbinder, but even if there were procedural breaches in spots, one of them would have to be in disagreement with one another before a lawsuit would be filed between them. A citizen that is materially harmed by the City and Ainbinder having unlawfully implemented a 380 Agreement could make a stink about it, but a legal victory on the part of the citizen as to a restraining order would only stall for time so that the t's could be crossed and the i's dotted before everything resumed as planned. (If you can stall until a new mayor gets elected...who knows?)

If there is evidence supporting the accusation of cronyism, then RUDH should file a complaint with the Attorney General's office. That's what they're there for.

***DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I AM PROBABLY WRONG. DO NOT ACT UPON WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.***

Edited October 21, 2011 by TheNiche

[s3mh]

***DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I AM PROBABLY WRONG. DO NOT ACT UPON WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.***

You are wrong. Two words: Sierra Club.