TheNiche

I probably misspoke on that. I meant the jogging trail in the median of Heights Blvd.

Right, because America never built cheap goods like the Ford Pinto. It's a classic car now, don't ya know. And we sewed textiles waaaay better than them. Woo! YEAH! AMERICA! YEAH! Textiles plants were friggin' awesome! Wooooooooooooooooo!

I get where you're coming from, and that's why I'd oppose the Kroger 380, which was a give-away to the grocer. But the Ainbinder 380 only funds infrastructure improvements around the development, including street repaving and widening, and the extension of the Heights bike trail. It wouldn't matter who the tenants were; these were improvements best undertaken during construction of a new [anything] on that site, and it was just icing on the cake that the developer pays up front and is indemnified for completing them to City specs before eventually being reimbursed. Its one of the few competent 380 Agreements, IMO.

Okay then, I owe you a retraction and apology on that point. It seems that my frustrations are better directed at those whom feel insulted on behalf of third parties. I'm not entirely clear how to reason with such a person, but if I might ask a favor...if you ever see that kind of dynamic playing out again, please help me to make it clear to moderators that you're cool with it. They can't seem to tell the difference. That is all. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

In fairness, you joined the forum and launched a barrage of non-specific whining over issues that everyone acknowledges exist, and did so without bothering to look for previous threads on the subject from which you might learn a thing or two. (I'm not going to go look them up for you, even if you ask nicely. Data retreival for anonymous individuals is not my purpose in life.) Once it was pointed out what you were doing, you felt insulted. I don't know why. The replies you were getting seemed to have substance, even if they took on a frustrated tone. Then you started reporting us to moderators and getting on-topic content containing substance deleted from the forum. From my perspective, it seems like you've let your personal insecurities regarding age or experience (or whatever) overwhelm your better judgement. You're taking it out on us and the content that we devoted our time towards. You want to talk about what's insulting? That's insulting! Want a better relationship with the folks on this forum? Take a step back. Realize that it isn't personal (and shouldn't be). I don't know you. I don't know most of the people on this forum, but I seem to interact more effectively with them. If something issaid that makes you feel insecure, realize that you may be getting presented with an opportunity to grow and adapt. And if you think about it objectively, and it really and truely seems uncalled for, then maybe I'm off my rocker. Maybe I'm making a bad joke. Whatever the case, if it is uncalled for then there's no reason to feel offended; that would be my problem, not yours.

Wal-Mart is dangerous for lack of windows? Was that the best of their suggestions, or merely the most memorable after every sane person in the room started cracking up?

I don't recall those. Can you post a link to them?

Sure. Why not Dallas? Better yet, Frisco! Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Who are you to tell me that I'm spread out? Who are you to tell me that I can afford for the land underneath my apartment to get bid up in price!? You'd best start speaking for yourself. You do not speak for me!

'Stop Heights Wal-Mart' was doomed because the Heights ain't Boulevard Oaks; and I might add that the City was far from spooked by any lawsuit. They knew that they'd get sued by Buckhead and didn't care; and the RUDH lawsuit was and is frivilous. And although there was a little bit of pushback on the Kroger 380, other horrendous 380 Agreements continue to pass under the radar. As for the Yale bridge...thankfully there's an alternate route a couple hundred feet away. No small businesses have failed, nor will they. And nothing has been changed about Wal-Mart's business model. Time is not necessary to see whether the opposition movement failed. I declare that it failed. I dance on its grave. The most memorable moment, for me at least, was exposing their leadership as a group of hypocrites acting beyond the scope of their non-profit's mission statement...followed by them trying to interpret the discovery as a threat so that it would be censored from public view. The legacy of NIMBYism is that people should have learned to doubt NIMBYs. 'Stop Heights Wal-Mart FAIL'

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Different entities take on different projects. As of last year, around the time that the Exxon campus was formally announced, TXDoT (i.e. the State, with a capital 'S') assumed financial responsibility for the Grand Parkway. TXDoT gets its funding for highway maintenance and construction from the gas tax. It was previously unclear whether it would be TXDoT or HCTRA, and at one point, Segment E had been considered for federal funding as a "shovel-ready" project, even though it would've been managed by a state or local entity. I'm sure that your calculations are more or less accurate and that if you add up all of the highway projects being undertaken by all of the involved entities, they far exceed the revenue of the gas tax. But I don't see the relevance...

As I've been saying, it is not meaningful to say that "Texas does this" or "Houston does that". Your data most likely includes federally-funded projects from the general coffers, bond-financed projects by counties which have been approved by referendum, et al.

That's all fine and well, but aside from a few apartment complexes that might get built near park & ride stations, commuter rail still requires that people have cars to get from their doorstep to the station. Private automotive transport is still effectively a necessity under those circumstances. With that constraint in mind, I would propose that outer loops are actually synergistic to the effectiveness of park & rides that connect radially into the urban core, and I would further suggest that the greater the number of people that are situated within about an hour of our urban core, the more attractive the urban core is to commercial enterprise. Meanwhile, the availability of inexpensive and easily accessible housing in the suburbs places downward pressure on housing costs throughout the entire region, which enables someone like myself to live in a cool place and still afford to dine out, travel, buy consumer electronics, save money, etc., and in so doing, stimulate the local, regional, and national economy. The benefits of an efficient regional transportation network are diverse; many are indirect and hard to quantify, but I know that they exist. And samagon, state law specifies that gasoline taxes must be used for highway projects. Texas' is a pay-as-you-go system. The federal government, counties, municipalities, toll road authorities, and special districts can issue bonds, however TXDoT cannot.

Nick, the City of Houston is not contributing any amount of funding toward the Grand Parkway and, as only a miniscule amount of it is within the city limits, the City of Houston doesn't get much of a say about it. The funding source is TXDoT. The constituents that will benefit from it are paying for it via their gasoline taxes to TXDoT, however, have been allowed substantial constructive input. It is not constructive to say that Houston needs to do this or Houston shouldn't be doing that, without understanding who is actually doing what.

I want to bring back the ability to dislike posts.

We're in agreement that its basically a MUD. Of course it could work, however I see limited market support unless their ad valorem tax rate turns out to be extraordinarily low. The land values south of the Loop, even with good frontage, are just...low. They drop off a cliff. I don't know what the new owner's basis in the property is or what their holding costs are, but it just doesn't seem like this can be made to work. Personally, I think that townhomes are the way to go. Home buyers are a lot less sensitive to (and oblivious of) tax rates than are commercial developers.

I agree that the system is royally screwed up and that there's a lot of taxation without proportionate representation going on. I'd be all in favor of dialing back County property taxes within incorporated municipalities. That would help the City of Houston; City officials would love that. I'd also be in favor of revoking Limited-Purpose Annexations. That would hurt the City of Houston; City officials would hate that. I'd also be in favor of getting the federal government out of the business of local transportation funding, but I don't think that any City or County officials would like that idea. Hopefully you can see that I mostly just want justice for the constituent. The difference between us, I think, is that whereas you are a pro-City partisan, I recognize that two thirds of our regional population are not constituents of the City of Houston, that they comprise a substantial tax base, and that they deserve to take out what they pay in. I also seem to understand the concept of political boundaries a fair bit better, and limitations of powers.

It's not novel. It works like a MUD, only on top of the City taxes. But you're right that the additional ad valorem taxes would have to be priced-in on the value of the land. Lets say that Skanska wants a three-acre parcel to build an office building. Lets say that the market value without an additional tax (such as most parts of the City of Houston) is going to be $25 per square foot. So that'd be $3.3 million, and normally they'd pay about 2.52% of that per year in property taxes plus 2.52% of the market value of whatever they build. So lets say that they improve the property, increasing its value to $35 million at 2.52% tax rate. They'd pay $882,000 per year. But what happens if the District levies a 0.6% tax on that property (which is reasonable, but still much lower than the only other predominantly commercial MUD that I'm aware of, Harris County MUD 468), over and above another site where the City didn't require a special district? Two things happen. 1) The tax liability would shoot up to $1,092,000, a difference of $210,000, but 2) if you apply a cap rate of 5% to that, its a dead weight of $4.2 million or $32 per square foot. Skanska wouldn't have to deal with that mess if they just redeveloped a portion of the car dealership that transacted at Lakes at 610 Drive (for much, much less per square foot). Besides. A shop like Skanska is too smart to develop anything on the South Loop. It's a Class B market, and frankly the Medical Center doesn't spur a lot of demand for spec office space; remember the see-through spec office building at Fannin & Knight that took years and a total renovation to finally become the University General Hospital? Low-rise built-to-suit office and medical office is another matter altogether; office-warehouse is another matter altogether; apartments and townhomes are another matter altogether. Sure, land in the top tier submarkets will cost more, but that's where the demand is proven, the infrastructure exists and is City-served, and the taxes are normal. And this isn't even taking into account what could happen to the tax rates if build-out projections fall behind after a significant amount of the infrastructure has been built. That's an added component of risk that developers don't want.

The PDF is not encouraging. Essentially, they have a MUD set up that might finance the infrastructure by levying an additional property tax over and above what any adjoining tracts of land have to pay in taxes, and they have no commitment from the City or County (although the possibility exists, as it always does, everywhere) that they might allow some offsetting tax abatement. (Consider that the developer of a $30MM property is already paying $750,000 per year in taxes; what is their incentive to pay $1,000,000? It doesn't make sense. Not unless the land is free...and even then! Almost as bad, the document looks like copy that their out-of-town consultant put together.

You don't know what you're talking about. 1) The extent of the City limits largely preclude the possibility of new greenfield development except in areas that have been stunted by blight for decades. 2) It is the City's effective policy to annex any commercial property that gets built in their ETJ, but not residential neighborhoods; this is to tax non-voters on the value of the property and to obtain sales taxes from residents to whom the City is not required to provide services. 3) Furthermore, when a developer comes along with a plan for a decent-sized subdivision in a part of the incorporated City that does not have infrastructure, the City's policy is to make the developer form a new in-City municipal utility district. In so doing, the City taxes the new subdivision to pay for everyone else's infrastructure, then makes them also pay for their own infrastructure on their own.

I don't know what you mean by "strong public and private sector". That phrase has no meaning and can be spun rhetorically however I so choose. The City of Houston doesn't have any say over new exurban or master planned communities, and even when we had the ability to threaten The Woodlands with annexation, they flinched and ended up paying us tribute in order to avoid our wrath...even though it didn't make financial sense for us to annex them in the first place. We got the better end of the deal, so I don't really understand where you're coming from on this. Suggesting that we give government more scrutiny is self-defeating. The people interesting in scrutinizing are already doing so, but most people aren't interesting in listening to the lurid stories, really at all. And what it comes down to is that the City didn't let Wulfe get away with the Gulfgate 380; the people let it happen. They're like that. Real estate finance is complex and beyond the comprehension of most people, even intelligent people, if and when they become aware of it. And that is why government powers must be reeled in. It's because constituents are incapable of identifying and punishing deliberate cronyism. It isn't enough that you acknowledge the problem and decree an end to it. And even if you ruled the world and everybody trusted you, you'd eventually die and your successor would screw it up again. And that is why hard-and-fast limitations on government powers are often the way to go. And perhaps nowhere is that more true than a big city, chock full of unknown bigshots.

I'm all for outdoor advertising. Our sign ordinances are far too strict. The more dynamically-lit billboards, the better! But that serves a purpose, which is to enhance brand awareness and loyalty while generating revenue for owners of commercial property. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and some of your examples are of cities that profit from it themselves. To that end, I think that downtown and other parts of town are poorly lit. But I cited Victory in Dallas for several reasons. Firstly, it is a good example of gimmickry, and because it is a city nearby that is similar in terms of climate and urban geography, it probably serves as a more common frame of reference than somewhere like Sapporo. Also...this is subject matter that has already been argued on multiple threads of HAIF for years and years, and Dallas is always a datapoint. As for PPPs, I'm against them. There's too much opportunity for abuse of power and/or incompetence to cost the City millions upon millions of dollars. Have you researched the various 380 Agreements? As much as the Heights crowd complains about the Ainbinder agreement, there are other agreements that make Ainbinder's look like a model of success by comparison. They basically handed Ed Wulfe a $2 million check on the Gulfgate deal, which received no press. Again, in general, the public sector just needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY. Regulate and tax if they must, but GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Although I disagree with C2H that gimmicky lighting has any effect really at all on retail sales (and I cite Dallas' Victory as evidence of that), and although I do make fun of people that are intimidated by the homeless or that imply a willingness to try and displace them, I have to say...they do scare people off and suppress sales. Its just true. There's no getting around it. Its hard to say which is the greater problem, that consumers are easily intimidated or that the homeless exist, but neither circumstance is likely to change as a result of anything we can say or do on this forum. One of the stories that I tried to tell (twice, and which keeps getting censored by the moderators), is that I made a girl that was with me cry once by refusing to give a "devoutly christian" homeless guy money for a "sandwich" at midnight. So yeah, I get where Nick_G is coming from. There are parts of downtown where a guy just can't walk around with a girl without getting hassled by a vagrant that thinks he has social leverage in the situation. And often, they do have leverage. My dining-out habits reflect the possibility that a date might be put off by an encounter with them. (So yes, overly-zealous moderators, the homeless are relevant to Houston Pavilions being in Trouble, which is the topic of this thread, and my experiences and input are on-topic and relate to that issue. You don't have to like me, but quit messing with me!)

Am I restricted from this thread? I've written out three diplomatically-worded responses to the post deletions, and it seems that all of them have been deleted. Do I need to start a new thread about this?

Define "we". I live in the Museum District, not the Katy Prairie. I am not "they". The only local jurisdictional overlap I have with "them" is Harris County, and even then, most of "them" would rather move out of my county than to my neighborhood if the choice were forced. Which should be just as well, because (if you sincerely want progressive property taxation and more light rail) I suspect that you'd rather that "they" elect "their" own government officials rather than yours. Live and let live, dude. If you want people to be more like you, you have to understand that it is their choice. You can't force them. They have to come to your way of thinking.

I find it fascinating how much effort you put into communicating so ineffectively. You state that homelessness is a problem but reject any solution that might address the issue, then claim that "planning" is the root problem and a solution, that downtown is now being planned (which it is, but not in any binding form or fashion, only barely as believable as the mid-century plan that the Gulf Freeway should've been our Uptown), and then you assert normative and unassailable beliefs that downtown is some kind of sacred ground. Everything you've said is baseless.