TheNiche

I am a ride volunteer, you don't have to pay in advance. Your other complaints, well, you must run a lot of charity events so you are entitled to complain, right?

Their website does not indicate that non-paying participants are welcome, and it lays out all kinds of rules and requirements. It sounded like fun, but I didn't want to pay and so I didn't bother to show up to find out that it was okay to go rogue.

What we have here, then, is a failure to communicate. I blame BikeHouston.

Even better. There's already work that'll be going on, and this would tie in. And again...the neighborhood is paying for it, not me.

That's ironic, because that's what some call our light rail line.

So if it isn't a glorified bus system (by definition if nothing else) then what is it? BRT? I didn't see anything about it being BRT.

And if the Uptown line was supposedly going to cause hell in Uptown with the construction and operation, I find it odd that no one is complaining about this.

I really like that the Uptown Management District is paying for such a large share of a lower overall project cost. Construction shouldn't take as long or be as disruptive as light rail. And I suspect that they'll do a better job on integrating signal priority and timing between the buses and regular traffic than METRO has done with light rail on the Red Line. And at the very least, they're securing right of way.

All in all, I'm fairly pleased at this point.

he said the most important factor was getting everything built by 2020 PERIOD!

What is the significance of 2020?

Eh.. I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's very relevant. I just feel like what I said is reasonable enough.

What you said was whining. I demonstrated as much by whining back at you about something for which the proximate cause of the grievance was the same: a lack of money. There was nothing at all insightful that you communicated, and my response to you is a critique of your vapid rhetorical style.

Get rid of GM payments and we can afford the proposed rail line. Maglev.. not quite lol.

Raise taxes and we can afford the Maglev. Same difference. The money's got to come from somewhere.

Where, now? We rode tonight, but not on Memorial.

I started seeing cyclists coming up the ramp from Memorial at the Waugh bridge, and then all the way to Montrose, and then pretty far down Montrose.

EDIT: This is a little off-topic, but I was invited to the Moonlight Ramble tomorrow night. It sounded like it might be fun, but I don't like that they require that I register in advance and then pay them money so that they can force me to wear a helmet and sign a waiver of liability that allows me to ride on public rights-of-way. It's a bad deal. It's convoluted. I think it's a scam.

It's unfortunate that the second largest employment center in Houston is just going to get a glorified bus system, that will most likely not provide any meaningful improvements and not have as much of an impact as a rail line would.

It's unfortunate that we don't have Maglev. Maybe it's because we haven't the fortune to spend.

I have returned and it was good. The Wal-Mart was perfectly adequate. Shelves were well-stocked and EDLP was in effect. There were many customers. The parking lot was probably two thirds full. The customer base was extremely diverse in every way. People of every shape and color, of both low income and high income households, with and without children, shopping alone and with others, and perfectly pleasant, all were in attendance.

There weren't any protesters, possibly because it was a little cold out. I probably shouldn't expect them to be particularly tolerant of 60-degree weather or socioeconomic diversity.

There was one frustrating thing about my trip, which was the drive home. It must've been a critical mass event, and the route must have picked up at Memorial Drive. The cyclists did not know how to stay in their lanes. Certain ones seemed to really take a pleasure in weaving around, in and out of lanes and posted bike lanes, or riding along the striped line. Something about that should be illegal. They were definitely posing a hazard to public safety. I think that I'm going to complain to the City and see if we can't get them monitored by HPD (perhaps instead of the Yale Street bridge).

I think setting a benchmark that someone should own a business before criticizing a business is absurd. When Bruce Molzan was stealing wages from workers, I protested that, and I didn't need to own a business to do it. Thankfully his place has, as of today, been torn down.

You can say whatever you want based on whatever benchmark of understanding you so please. Nobody's going to stop you except for you...which in this case, is what I am suggesting that you should consider.

Just so you know that individuals are capable of not revealing their ignorance of a subject matter, I'm going to demonstrate my point by not commenting on what seems to me to be an off-topic red herring about which I know only a superficial level of detail, the issue of Bruce Molzan.

...

See now, that wasn't so hard. Okay, now I'm going to go to Wal-Mart. Perhaps I'll see you in the pizza isle.

Am I a free person living in a free country? Then I guess I'm in a position to criticize a business' practices.

I don't think that anybody was suggesting that your civil right to free speech is or should be constrained, merely that you are clearly lacking of experience and credibility and that your opinion is so worthless to decision-makers within our socitey that it is a waste of your own time to bother expressing it.

That you would confuse the issue proves the point.

I'm so upset. I will be out of town on Friday, so I won't be able to see Leonard and s3mh picketing the new Walmart on opening day. Can someone take pictures for me?

No worries, I've got you covered. Them too, as I plan on buying them some Kleenex, lest they cry me a bayou to try and prove their stormwater runoff concerns.

Need me to pick up some 50-pound bags of dog food while I'm there?

Pretty sure that Walmart bought the land prior to development, maybe even prior to the 380.

The 380 Agreement, signed and dated Sept. 28th, 2010, cited the following:

"Whereas, Developer owns or has contracted to purchase certain tracts of land totalling approximately 23 acres...as depicted on the map...for the purpose of developing a multi-tenant commercial/retail development..."

The deed conveyed to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust and was recorded on October 19th, 2010.

Wal-Mart would have had the land under contract at the time that the agreement was made, however would have made the contract contingent on the seller fulfilling a variety of commitments. That the seller was able to do so created value for the buyer and would have been built into the contracted purchase price of the site.

I thought Ainbinder owns it.

Ainbinder did own it and was the master developer. They have since sold a 15.9-acre parcel to Wal-Mart.

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me. Cosmetic upgrades often make sense, perhaps even if they are only temporary. (In the long run, everything is temporary.) It appears from the agreement between the City and Ainbinder--not Walmart--that the City did retain the right to shift funds to some project other than balusters if they had wanted to. They didn't. I tend to agree that that was a mistake on their part, but that was the consequence of poor administration of their agreement rather than that the agreement itself was bad.

If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me. Good. I am glad that it's fine with you.

If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me. Pot meet kettle.

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it. Fantastic. Please do so in a thread that is directly related to the news that you are sharing.

It is their 18 wheeler traffic that is the reason this all came to light in the first place. West End residents did not want Walmart's 18 wheeler traffic cutting through their neighborhood and raised the issue to the City at the big public meeting when the news of the Walmart first broke. The City responded (assumedly with input from Walmart as Walmart was a participant in the public meeting) that Walmart's 18 wheelers would take Yale St.--problem solved. But then people found out that the bridge was load limited and could not handle 18 wheelers. The response to that from the City and Walmart was complete silence. Then, people looked at the underside of the bridge and saw that the bridge was in bad shape. TxDOT inspects the bridge and twice lowers the load limits down to 3k per axel. Now, the bridge could be closed any day if an inspection reveals further degradation. The City is scrambling to come up with temporary repairs, and it won't be until 2016 that the bridge gets replaced to be able to accomodate Walmart's 18 wheelers.

I don't care how it was discovered that the bridge was in poor shape. There are probably lots of bridges in poor condition that Wal-Mart trucks pass over thousands of times per day throughout the country, but that we just don't know about because there hasn't been some sort of unrelated controversy nearby. Wal-Mart is not responsible for ensuring that government infrastructure is up to snuff. That's the government's job.

Thankfully, there are alternatives.

In the meantime, Walmart is the direct beneficiary of 6 mil in public funds to pay for the infrastructure needed to get roads, drainage, and jogging trails upgraded for the development. The premises of providing tax payer money to the benefit of the richest retailer in the world is that it would benefit the community by taking care of needed infrastructure upgrades before the development opened. The agreement could have easily been modified to make the bridge the subject of the agreement and have the developer pay for the remainder of the upgrades that could not be funded in the 380 agreement (as every developer has had to do prior to Mayor Parker handing out 380 agreements like they were campaign flyers). That would have gotten bridge construction done by now and minimized the burden on the community, including Walmart and the rest of the tenants. But this never happened. There was never any mention of even trying to do it. Walmart and the developer just took what they could get from the community and have offered nothing to help get the bridge fixed so Walmart's 18 wheelers will have clear access to the development. The City primarly gets the blame. But, Walmart and the developer do not get a free pass. They could have stepped up and helped taken care of this problem, but did not.

IIRC, the direct beneficiary of the 380 Agreement was Ainbinder. Wal-Mart was not a party to the 380 Agreement. It was therefore an indirect beneficiary; however, whatever economic benefits were generated would have been captured in the sale price of the land as Ainbinder transferred it to Wal-Mart.

The agreement might have covered the bridge, but as Red points out, that would've been grossly irresponsible on the part of the City of Houston.

I'm sure that Ainbinder, Wal-Mart, the neighborhoods, and the City would all have preferred that the bridge get re-built concurrent with the construction of the feeder roads and prior to the completion of the development...but oh well, that just sucks. So it's up to TXDoT. You should send them letters imploring them to replace the bridge sooner than later. But I don't see how it involves Wal-Mart or how it might be particularly controversial.

Suggesting that someone commit suicide is reprehensible.

Oh, go cry me a river and drown in it. Hyperbole is only a rhetorical device, nothing more.

I ask again, what does this bridge have to do with the Wal-Mart?

If the premise is that our local government is like Baskin Robbins' 31 Flavors of Nincompoop, I happen to agree. But what does any of this have to do with Wal-Mart?

I've said over and over I think the 380 shouldn't exist. I don't think it should have been increased to include the bridge, something else I've said over and over. I'm just pointing out that the 380 did not do what it was intended to do. They did not get out in front of infrastructure issues. There sidewalks are worse, the trees are worse. I'm not saying that they should spend more 380 money. I'm saying they should never have spent any of it, it does not do what the City said it would do.

For the last time, I don't think there should have been a single cent of 380 money spent on anything, regardless what Niche or Red may interpret from what I've said.

I never meant to imply that you would want more money on a 380 Agreement. The question was a trap. Your dodgy responses implicate a motive other than (or perhaps in addition to) a straightforward distrust of government. (It's kind of strange, after all, that you and I both agree that there should be no further 380 Agreements, but that we're bickering anyway.)

Niche, are you sure the state is funding this, or is it federal funds?

No. Like yourself, I am relegated to hearsay for the most part.

The point of the 380 (according to Parker) was that it was supposed to get out in front of infrastructure issues. 380 FAIL.

Would you rather that the amount of the 380 Agreement had been many times larger, requiring the City to reimburse for what the state would've funded them to do in the first place? No. That's just stupid. You'd be complaining about that to no end.

The claim in Ashby was that the City never actually enforced the TIA requirements to the point of limiting sq ft in a development. The lawsuit pointed to a number of other multifamily developments that caused a degredation in traffic conditions but were not required to limit the sq footage of the development. The Ashby developers claimed an equal protection violation. The City is now stuck with its past history. If they try to actually enforce the TIA requirements, they will ge sued under equal protection. You do not need an appellate opinion to paint yourself into a legal corner. When you settle a lawsuit, you send a big signal to developers. The only solution is to completely re-write the regulation. But that is impossible with a developer controlled city government.

IIRC, the obscure code being cited by the city had to do with the placement of driveways and had not been enforced in a very very long time, since before TIA was TIA. If the City desires to enforce it, all that they would have to do is to tweak it in some manner as is substantive (this would be a low threshold) and then announce that they shall enforce it from here on out.

But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the City that has no qualms with arbitrarily suing developers is unwilling to inconvenience them. The thing is, developers don't really care what the codes are. If the City makes building stuff more onerous, then it just means that a developer cannot afford to pay as much for land as they would otherwise. The bid prices on land make up for the difference, and a long-term constraint on supply causes rents to rise so as to make development feasible again. If a certain price band of tenants is displaced into the suburbs, developers will simply follow them. If it displaces them all the way to Dallas, developers will follow them there, too. Everybody's got to live, work, and shop somewhere, after all. What developers care about (and I know because I was one during the height of the Ashby controversy) is that the City doesn't randomly target them and delay their project into oblivion on specious grounds.

The Koehler detour is terrible for 18 wheelers. When Yale St. closes, it will also be terrible for people trying to get to the development because there is not enough storage capacity between Yale and Heights on Koehler. Cars will back up onto Heights and create gridlock on the feeder.

Koehler goes east and west between both Heights and Shepherd/Durham. There's also Bass Street. There are multiple detours available as options. I still don't see what the big deal is. Truck traffic occurs all over our metropolitan area 24 hours per day, and there are many intersections not designed to accommodate it. Somehow we make it work.

Besides, it's not as though Wal-Mart is going to schedule its entire logistics operation to coincide with Houston's rush hours. Congestion isn't a problem except for the few hours when it is. Let's not exaggerate the problem.

I was at the Wal-Mart on Silber last night. Did you know that in order for westbound traffic on I-10 to reach it, they have to exit Antoine and detour the opposite direction down I-10 back to Silber? I hope that you never have to take that trek. It would surely be the end of you. Myself though, I survived unscathed. And now I have new underwear. Yay!

He's looking for a map of the tunnels that is formatted such that it can be superimposed on top of aerial imagery within Google Earth.

Bob, try contacting Central Houston, Inc. directly. They administer the Downtown Management District and TIRZ. If anybody has this, it will be them. If it's not in KML/KMZ, then it'll be in a different format that might still be workable for you.

The TIA process is a joke. The City does not require the recommended mitigations. They give developers a free pass now that they are all scared by the Ashby lawsuit.

If that is true, then all it takes is a new ordinance, then for that ordinance to be enforced uniformly from that point onward. It's really, really simple.

I would add that the Ashby lawsuit was settled out of court. No precedents were set. Nothing regarding TIAs has changed from the way it was. If behavior has changed, then that may reflect changing political sentiment against NIMBYs. But actually...I strongly suspect that you're just making things up.

Koehler is a lousy detour.

How is that?

Again, Niche, before you question how I spend my time, you should spend the exact same amount of time on every other anti walmart fight out there. Your logic, not mine.

I'm not aware of any anti-Wal-Mart threads that are ongoing. There's another Wal-Mart about to get built inside the loop at Wayside and I-45, but the neighborhood seems to want it there. I would too, if I was still living over in that direction. So yeah, there's just not a debate being had...except for right here.

Besides. I am neither pro-Wal-Mart or anti-Wal-Mart. They're only a business entity. The perspective that I am offering in this thread is threefold:

1) What gets built in our city should be shaped and constrained by market forces and codes and ordinances that are uniformly administered. What gets built in your neighborhood should be compatible with the needs and wants of our city as expressed by the aforementioned forces and constraints.

2) RUDH's officers live a lifestyle that is incompatible with the organization's mission statement and seem to be as much a part of their perceived problem as any sort of solution that they might be offering; and they're dicks for threatening legal action against me for having investigated them and having said so.

3) Some 380 Agreements have been better or worse than others, and in capable hands they have the potential to effect positive change. Ironically, some of the worst among them seem to be the most popular with constituents (i.e. Gulfgate HEB). Whereas I generally distrust the public to understand the implications of 380 Agreements and also that I also generally distrust that local politicians act in the interests of their constituents, and also whereas 380 Agreements are unnecessary in the course of providing essential public services, I therefore believe that the language that enables them should be repealed under state law. This is consistent with my general philosophy of government.

I don't know why the developer and Walmart wanted cosmetic repairs on an 80+ year old bridge. Their logic also escapes me. I don't spend my time making up motives for others that I couldn't possibly know.

I know why the developer would have wanted cosmetic repairs. It's to make the area look nicer. Isn't it obvious?

I don't think anything should have been in the 380. And I've already said explicitly that I don't think replacing the bridge should be in the 380.

Planeing, resurfacing and painting both Yale Street and Heights bridges are in the original 380 list. They took out planeing and resurfacing and added lights and baluster repair. It's a fact - the Yale Street Bridge is in the 380.

How is stating a verifiable fact an unsupportable theory?

If I recall correctly, the 380 Agreement allowed a provision whereby the city and the developer could agree to add or remove items from the original list. They ended up using that provision, although clearly some of the work that ended up being done was of questionable value.

But that's pretty much just the City being the City. (What would the developer care about baluster repair?) The City does lots of things of questionable value, such as building and operating public libraries. If you're pissy about this--and clearly you are because I can't recall you posting anything in any other thread, ever--then why aren't you also getting pissy about other things that the City does?