TheNiche

Since when is a five-and-a-half-story building a lowrise? Or bad news, for that matter?

Forget about Downtown and Midtown. You should ride your bike more westward, into Southampton/Boulevard Oaks. There are more pedestrians, its prettier, and I think that the presence of people like you and I pisses off the NIMBY property owners.

In Sim City's god mode, you could build a steep hill along the route of the Pierce Elevated, tunnel through it, and then after that you could submerge the middle of the tunnel into a lake...or a vast ocean supposing you wish to create a beachfront park along the edge of downtown Houston.

Doing so would most likey exceed the scope of their mission as a 501©(4) non-profit entity, although I'd argue that most everything about who they are and what they do is been ill-fitting with their mission statement. So why not?

Wider trees are older. They take fewer years to become mature contributors to the urban canopy. I specifically remember that when they first opened up, the Gulfgate location was lauded as among their most profitable stores. I'm pretty sure that if HEB had a problem, it was that Wulfe jacked up their rent...which would make the 380 Agreement basically a pass-through to a landlord that brags in public on how well-connected he is with the City. Its just speculation on my part, but it seems the most likely circumstance. I don't disagree with the intent of Chapter 380 in principal; I disagree with its use in practice. It's too easily abused or (much more often, I think) simply used in a sub-optimal fashion by well-meaning people that aren't hotshot finance gurus, and that are advised by attorneys on a staffer's salary and that haven't got a dog in the fight. If it were up to me, I'd prefer that economic development programs were carried out by Management Districts, and also that Management Districts were mandated by the State to budget directly according to participative constituent input. It's not up to me, though.

It doesn't have to be a strong analogy. The looseness of my analogy actually inherent to my point. The scope of Chapter 380 can be so broadly construed that my fishing analogy can fit right in alongside that of this real-world scenario or that of the Humble Building. All it takes is a savvy consultant that specializes in economic development studies to quantify (and often rhetorically load up) the direct and indirect economic impacts. For instance, infrastructure that addresses runoff concerns and that prevents street flooding certainly has a diversified impact. Better drainage leads to fewer insurance claims, lower premiums, and higher property values. Quality of life improvements (such as the wide sidewalks, wider trees, extended jogging trail, and improved parks in the Ainbinder agreement...or ostensibly keeping around a fancy shmancy HEB in so supposedly under-served neighborhood...or the preservation of a beautiful but functionally obsolescent highrise) are the most politically favored, and it would seem should be the most favored by RUDH. If RUDH were smart about promoting the interests of their neighborhood, they'd be actively promoting other public/private partnerships between the City and other property owners in their neighborhood in order to obtain disproportionate funding for the neighborhood's pet projects...and wouldn't particularly give a damn whether the City's financial obligations were made responsibly. And no, it isn't about Keynesianism. It never was. It's completely and totally Marxist, replete with the opportunities for corruption. I keep explaining that I oppose Chapter 380 of the Local Government Code. I'd like a City referendum to be made whereby the public can direct the City to no longer make use of these provisions of state law; and ultimately, I'd like Chapter 380 repealed by the state legislature. However, I also oppose RUDH's hairbrained and frivilous legal actions against the City of Houston. And I oppose the ill-informed and/or coercive commentary that is being spread about in a public forum by the likes of you, Leonard, and others.

I'd like to add, there are lots of places that can be a grow house, like our national parks. There aren't so many places that would serve well as a facsimile of Bangkok. Reliant Park is one such place, and we should endeavor to make it so.

Why do you think that the soft costs and contingency are way out of line? What is reasonable in your view? Why is your view more valid than those that authored the agreement? Also, I would advise you to go back and read the 380 agreement, as well. You should see what it says and what the costs are. You should itemize the infrastructure that is required of all new development and cite the ordinance that requires it. I'm asking this of you because it was obvious at first that you were criticizing the 380 Agreement without having read it. Now, you read it, and have moved onto citing code without having read that. The TIA sounds like it took into account certain assumptions as defined in the scope of services. I'd imagine that the strip center across the way required an appraisal assuming the presence of Wal-Mart, the anchor store, in order for the developer to obtain construction financing. It doesn't mean that a Wal-Mart is mandated by law or even by the loan docs. By the way, can I get a link to the TIA? As for the 380 stating what is "necessary", RedScare is a lawyer. Perhaps he would be so kind as to provide us with the legal definition of the term when it is not propped up by even the slightest mandate or consequence.

Since we're back to talking the politically impossible and the vacancy rate at nearby motels is so extraordinarily high 10 months out of the year, I'm going to suggest making it a land-based 'Freedom Ship'. The federal government would de-annex Reliant Park from the jurisdiction of the United States and allow special permits for the trafficking of drugs, humans, firearms, and Lindsey Lohan...just to be thorough.

Me too. Please itemize and cite the relevant ordinances.

I would contend based on Exhibit C of the executed 380 Agreement that they would not be required to perform the vast majority of the scheduled items if the 380 had not been executed. Earlier language within the agreement requires Ainbinder to conform to local codes and ordinances and authorizes Ainbinder to bill the City for compliance with respect to the infrastructre that is being built for the City, but that's a perfectly reasonable default condition. I can see how it seems confusing, however. I would also contend that to the extent that Ainbinder finances the improvements with debt, Ainbinder only gets reimbursed for the cost of the debt. In that situation, Ainbinder does not make any money, however Ainbinder is being indemnified by the City so as that it is Ainbinder's responsibility to properly construct the improvements and to properly deal with its contractors and subcontractors. Construction is a risky enterprise, so Ainbinder's commitment is valuable. If Ainbinder finances the construction with its own money, it is only entitled to the prime rate plus one percent, which at this moment equates to 4.25%. But that means that they've tied up their money indefinitely for a rate of return that is a fraction of the IRR that is being sought from the development itself. Ainbinder is not a subsidiary of Bank of America, after all, they're a small business. They'd CERTAINLY rather have the money in their pocket than have it be tied up in the City's infrastructure. The opportunity cost is too high, meaning that Ainbinder ends up leaving money on the table. Again...I don't pretend to believe that the City structured the deal optimally and I am against it, but your criticisms are unfounded.

Let's say that you were a sport fisherman and you went catfish noodling in a pond nearby. You wish that it were stocked with bass and that the rutted road would be filled in, but it isn't. You still go noodling. A local municipality considers stocking it with bass and installing some aerators to improve the ecosystem, but some joyless numbskull argues that since sport fishermen already enjoy the use of the pond, it isn't beneficial to make it any more enjoyable. (The numbskull would prefer that the money be used to lure a "chef-driven restaurant", whatever the hell that is.) You'd be pissed, right, because that's just stupid. Your behavior may not change, but you and people like you would still enjoy the improvements...even if none of you could afford to finance them on your own. If the 380 doesn't stimulate anything, then why would the developer bother with it? Clearly there is a public benefit, just not enough for the developer to agree to pay for such things as scraping and re-painting the Heights and Yale bridges, or to remove an old railroad bridge over White Oak Bayou, or to re-grade and re-seed the bayout itself without sharing the cost by some public mechanism. (All of these things are part of the 380 Agreement.)

Good for you for not supporting 380s in general. Wal-Mart has as much to do with this as does Murphy's Deli, whether Murphy's Deli is a tenant or not. Water, sewer, and storm sewer connections are obviously required; traffic control measures of this extent may or may not be. As a statement of fact, your comments are either ill informed or coercive; I have not decided which.

You won't get any argument from me that 380 Agreements are fertile ground for misanthropic endeavors. If they are administered as they have been to date, then I don't see that they should continue to be administered at all. And Leonard is right, the Gulfgate one is ridiculous! It makes Ainbinder's look wholly legitimate and even-handed by comparison...but that's just it, is that this one does't really piss me off. The developer and the City both wanted the infrastructure, but neither needed it; an arrangement was made whereby the infrastructure could be afforded now instead of later without conflicts of interest, and with managed risks for both parties. It wasn't perfect, but everybody wins as per the spirit of the law. I'm still opposed to this one because I'm opposed to all of them, but that stance has nothing to do with how well this one was crafted or that Wal-Mart is a tenant. Where you I seem to disagree is that I oppose comments that are ill-informed or coercive, and that is how I would categorize the bulk of the NIMBY response to this issue, including yours.

So, you're arguing that (almost) six million dollars is being spent on a water/sewer connection. That's just ignorant. Go research the issue on RUDH's website. Start with this document. Educate yourself before you spew falsehoods into the public sphere; at least then you can bloviate credibly. According to the RUDH document I just linked to, the developer must make the following assurances and safeguards: So...the developer is doing the work to the engineering specifications set forth by the City of Houston, however is specifically required to exceed the minimum standards in order to qualify for reimbursement. Your statement is factually incorrect according to people who have organized to agree with the sentiment of your comments! And besides... If the City were doing it, would you expect that they should exceed their own specs? And if they did, then what would be the point of them having specs in the first place? If the City is either over-building its infrastructure or under-specifying it, then isn't it the City's fault rather than those that play by the City's rules? And shouldn't you just be pissed off in general, understanding that vastly more work is being done by the City to its own specs than is being done at this one inconsequential site? The effective term of the loan is flexible, providing the City with up to 15 months after the anchor tenant opens to make payment. Payment could be made sooner if the City so desires. Interest rates on a shopping center with Wal-Mart as a pre-leased anchor should be very low; and prime + 1% on any portion attributed to equity rather than debt is also very favorable to the City. In any case, six million dollars in the grand scheme of a much more expensive development does not create incentive for the developer to try to draw out the project or to obtain anything but the lowest-cost financing. The on-time completion of the shopping center is in everyone's mutual and unconflicted interest.

If it were a lineup of Ross, Marshall's, and CitiTrends apparel instead of a Wal-Mart, the 380 Agreement with the developer would still have been a worthwhile deal. It didn't matter who the tenants were. The infrastructure would still have been wanted by the developer and the City (even if the City couldn't have been able to fund the improvements as quickly as they would've liked). There would also still be a marginal increase in the traffic count and congestion. The Yale Street bridge would still be unsafe, although nobody would've cared to call it out as such. RUDH and its constituency of high and mighty morally-superior Heights residents would've still whined at the prospect that an area near their neighborhood that isn't their neighborhood would be subject to an influx of townies. The fact is, this thread is not about Wal-Mart. It's about self-important people that think that the world revolves around them.

Repaved or resurfaced? There is a difference.

Too close to the entrance of a school for a bar, I think, but let's not rule out a 24-hour game room such as exist further down the way along this major thoroughfare.

Not to mention that it'll be more convenient for central, southeast, south, and southwest Houston. IAH is very far away for these travelers. I'm all for this. And anyway, screw United. Their decision to depart Texas while doubling down the value of their hub was an open invitation for the City to screw with them. What are they going to do, dial back service? Move the hub? No. It's a single-hub city and their investment is too large to abandon. They're locked in.

Maryland Manor is unsightly and I think that it smells odd. But that's only because it is surrounded by decadence. If it were in Montrose, it'd be a decent-enough complex...but still a teardown. To my mind, a highrise with street level retail at this location will look better, smell better, and provide a neighborhood amenity that is better integrated with the charm and elegance of the neighborhood. To the question of whether a commercial property, a multi-family property, a property with minimal setbacks, or a property with a tall building should have been a concern of area residents, I think that the fact that original and revised deed restrictions in those neighborhoods have specifically restricted all of those building elements speaks volumes. Yes, people were previously aware and concerned regarding these issues. And yes, it is perfectly legal and permissible to pay a property owner in exchange for them agreeing to a restrictive covenant. The developer's perspective is fairly straightforward. This existing complex is functionally obsolete, yet the site is only large enough to allow for the feasibility of townhomes (similar to "Cheyne Walk") or a residential highrise. A midrise cannot achieve the density or efficiencies of scale that would be necessary to make it feasible as an apartment complex; and new condos are just...stupid. The highrise is the highest and best use due to the visibility and access afforded by a major thoroughfare; it helps to generate leasing traffic. And that is why this is highrise land rather than townhome land. That is a developer's perspective.

I agree with both of you and would submit the idea of an adaptable multi-use space should be a consideration. Perhaps something like a sculpture garden with some kind of running water, but that's open enough that it could double as a small amphitheater or open air market on the weekends. But yeah, I'll put a different spin on it, too. What these greedy green-space-wanting morons in Midtown don't seem to realize is that this is next to the light rail. Tourists might theoretically ride by and it should be a strategic policy goal that hypothetical tourists (possibly from Dallas) are impressed by the urban environment that we build for them to the exclusion of our citizens' own recreational opportunities. (Otherwise, they'll go home all pouty and write bad reviews about our senselessly hallowed burger joints. We can't have that, people! Something must be done!)

Verdantly green jello wrestling... I like it. Mud pits divided by volleyball nets with a dress code...requiring verdantly green bikinis... I like that too.

What exactly is dynamic topo? Is that some kind of A/V setting on one of these newfangled 3D HDTV sets? Or is it that the soil content is modified so that topography changes at an accelerated rate compared to the natural soil over geologic time? Perhaps it means that there are actuators under the surface? Gigantic subwoofers that generate minor earthquakes at random intervals, just to keep people on their feet (and off the park benches)? Or is it a swimming pool filled with green jello? That would be verdant, green, and dynamic...so long as verdant green isn't anything at all like soylent green...let's not have that, shall we?

I blame Wal-Mart.

We understand your point. It was clearly stated and restated. Your position is that they aren't safe for my grandmother because they aren't made of foam rubber. She could fall and die! They should be made of foam rubber or they shouldn't be there at all.