heights

I had a close friend who worked for Hess at the time they moved into One Allen Center. They did the same thing with that move-in where the IT department moved in first while the rest of the build-out was going on. One day, John Hess and his entourage walked through for a tour and stated that the green color in the carpeting was not the correct Hess green. All of the carpet was subsequently ripped out and replaced. And one other quirky thing: employees were allowed to have one "tastefully framed" photograph of a family member on their desks, but wall calendars and other "clutter" was strictly prohibited. In the cubicles, the file cabinets had top doors that opened out over the top of the file cabinet so it would knock off any items that were placed up there. But they did have a killer dining facility with all kinds of great food, including a grill where you could get chicken, hamburgers, or even mahi-mahi, a deli for sandwiches, gourmet entrees and soups, etc. And I think it was only like $3 per meal for employees. I guess if you can keep employees in the building for lunch, they'll have more time for work!

That's it. I can take no more without calling you a complete *@#!@$&. How in the world do you know what route Walmart trucks will take? As for the Chicken-Little Anti-Walmart NIMBY that was quoted in the Chron saying that there's a "disaster" on the horizon if an overweight truck goes over that bridge: How much do you think a fire truck weighs when loaded with water? From my research they run about 45-50K lbs. Do you think a fire truck or other overweight truck has ever gone over that bridge? Did it collapse? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put your hands in some puffy mittens so you are unable to type any more of your stupid crap here. Thanks.

The kuff article has a link to a photo (provided by RUDH) of the load limit sign for that bridge showing that it is 40K lbs. Of course with their tactics, they might have planted that sign there.

Maybe we chip in and each purchase one large helium balloon that s3mh can attach to his house and float off to some paradise where he can sleep at night knowing he won't be crushed in a McVic sandwich.

While driving south on Heights Blvd the other day, I noticed that the school zone was only about 1/3 as long as it used to be. Then I noticed that the Esperanza school which had prompted the extension of the school zone to 1/2 mile long has apparently completed their move. The buildings are for sale now.

Chron.com has an article on the votes: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7371547.html Pay particular attention to Bart Truxillo's comments.

It's not my neighbor's yard that's the problem. It's some yards belonging to people who are advertising with their yellow yard signs that they support an ordinance which allows a chosen few to tell other property owners what is acceptable. And designating the use of hardiplank and front additions as a nuisance has no basis in science like the fact that overgrown vegetation does provide harbor for vermin.

Why would you call me a douchebag or a dickhead or whatever d-word you were referring to? #1, if you notice, we seem to be on the same side of the preservation debate. #2, I could post a number of examples of overgrown landscaping at yellow-sign houses, including one of the hahc board members. While some of it is a matter of taste, there are legitimate reasons that the city code prohibits out-of-control vegetation. I thought it was relevant since these are the people that will be imposing their architectural judgement on the rest of us. And the remark I made about the $500/day fine for overgrown vegetation was a comparison to the fine for violating the rules of the architecture-police.

As kind of an aside, while driving through the Heights (on the way back to my bungalow where I've lived for 15 years with the blue sign still out in front), I noticed that most of the homes with the yellow signs out front are hideously over-landscaped. I'm not talking about lots of manicured landscaping, I'm talking about overgrown rat harborages -- maybe time to get neighborhood protection out to let them know what $500/day fines are all about!

I'll bet you hear that a lot.

Oh, I get it now. You believe that businesses wishing to open in an area should first have to get the approval of the residents of that area. Perhaps each neighborhood could elect members to serve on a Development Review And Citizen Oversight for New Initiatives in A Neighborhood (DRACONIAN) board. New businesses would submit an application which would be reviewed and voted on by the DRACONIAN board to decide if that business would be allowed to open in (or even near) a neighborhood. Hell, why don't we just let the HAHC control new businesses as well as residential stuff? Remember, if it weren't for crybaby NIMBY's, we'd have a nice Starbucks at 19th and Heights instead of an abandoned bank building.

Just for the record, I can't wait for the new Walmart to be built and I can't wait to mail in my postcard saying that I don't want to be in a Historic District anymore. And I've lived in the Heights for 16 years! All those naysaying newcomers should move back to the burbs where they belong (that's you s3mh)

Oh Boy! I saw a sign for Arby's opening soon in the Target shopping center.

So now we're stuck. We either live with what Lovell & Co have forced down our throats, or we live with no protection at all. Fortunately my block has minimum lot size and minimum setbacks. If we can garner enough signatures to tell them "No Means Hell No to your tyranny!", it will tide us over until "one-term Parker" and some of the others get voted out of office and we can try for a reasonable compromise.

Received one reply so far: Thank you for your email comments regarding the proposed historic preservation ordinance. The Mayor is very aware of all the issues, opinions and facts regarding the proposed amendments and has posted the items for consideration by City Council this week. We do expect some of the council members will offer amendments, including one extending the 15 day time frame, and will ask for a week’s delay of these items. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Diana DuCroz, AICP Senior Planner, Historic Preservation

I won't be able to make the meeting, but I just fired off my e-mail to the mayor and all council members. Like poyea, I have already made an addition to my bungalow and I don't plan any more, so the ordinance would probably not affect me. Furthermore, there's a vacant bungalow on a giant lot next to me that would probably be "forever preserved" by the new ordinance, likely preventing my home from being overshadowed by a McVic. But property rights are property rights and I won't let someone take them away without a fight! If the ordinance passes and someone starts going door to door with a petition for a re-vote, I've got my blue sign up so you'll know I'm on your side!

The 380 agreement was tagged by CM Gonzalez and Jolanda Jones (she probably just wanted to see her name in the paper) and the vote will be delayed for a week.

I e-mailed the mayor and asked for an explanation for the discrepancy between what she said about "interest free" and what I read in the proposed 380 agreement. I received the following response from the mayor via e-mail from Madeleine Appel, Deputy Chief of Staff: Under the 380 agreement the City can pay off the reimbursement within three years with no interest, and that is our goal. After three years the interest applies. Sincerely, Annise D. Parker Mayor

Interesting piece in the Chron from the point of view of some of the proposed Walmart's neighbors who actually want the Walmart. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/7199516.html

s3mh, this type of post is exactly why most everyone here (except j008, of course) thinks you are full of crap. You just make up stuff all the time. Here you say "you will probably max out Yale" but have no facts to back it up. You are then able to magically tell us how the city operates with regard to granting permits. I think I'll join that other poster in celebrating the new Walmart when it gets built, just to rub it in!

The mayor actually said "Interest Free" on KUHF. You can read the transcript or listen to it yourself by clicking the link below. I am a supporter of this Walmart, but even I feel that the proposed 380 agreement is bait-and-switch. http://app1.kuhf.org...s_id=1284071470 Mayor Parker: "I'm absolutely coming from the standpoint that this is a project that will happen anyway. The developer is very clear. They came to us saying they were going to do the project. They didn't come to us asking us for anything. We asked them, why not take advantage of their money, interest free, to do some things of benefit to the neighborhood and making this a win-win for everybody involved."

A few days back, I believe it was in the NPR story, the mayor stated that the money for the developments in the 380 agreement would be paid back to the developer without interest. "We asked them, why not take advantage of their money, interest free, to do some things of benefit to the neighborhood and making this a win-win for everybody involved." But if you read the 380 agreement, it shows that there will be an interest rate equal to what the developer pays for interest, or if the developer does not borrow the money then the interest rate will be prime+1%. Am I confused or is the mayor confused?? Also, I note that the 380 agreement shows the city paying for drainage/detention improvements on the developer's land which will remain the property of the developer.

I think I saw the same Prius repeatedly driving back and forth down Koehler street on the day the non-biased traffic study was being performed. On another note, it's funny how in the NPR story, Nick Urbano (from the Responsible Urban Development aka anti-Walmart group) says that he thinks the 380-agreement is a good idea! Amazing that they would let that slip out after paying money to Civic Economics to "prove" that the 380-agreement is a bad idea. I think a competent therapist would recommend medication for the whole lot of them.

I found this interesting "article" on Houston Press regarding Walmart grocery prices: "Would Walmart Bring Low Grocery Prices to the Heights? Not Really" http://blogs.houston...cery_prices.php In a manner that has become the hallmark of the anti-Walmart folks, the article is completely without fact. The author compared grocery prices from a regular Walmart (not a Supercenter). Because that particular Walmart did not carry "Eggland's Best" eggs, it lost the "Egg" price category. Because that Walmart did not carry fresh produce, it also lost the "Gala Apples" and "Roma Tomatoes" categories. The author also bashed Walmart because she could not locate any information about their "Lone Star Farmer's Market" eggs on the internet. She stated, "The 90 cent eggs offered at Walmart weren't Eggland's Best, but you can certainly purchase them if you have utter faith in buying eggs from a brand that no one has heard of, and for which absolutely no information could be found on the Internet." Even constraining my Google search with quotations around the whole brand name, I got 570 results. It is humorous that that anti-Walmart campaign is so outlandishly bloated with misrepresentations and misinformation that it damages their credibility.

And this is my favorite quote of all from the entire "study": Does a Supercenter constitute "destination retail?" It does not. A Supercenter in this location will add nothing to the product mix available in the City of Houston. As a result, it cannot be said that the store will draw shoppers from beyond the immediate market area. If this is true, then why are y'all so worried about the f'kn traffic impact? Wait, here's a close second: A partner in the firm visited the site on August 8, touring the neighborhood and viewing the range of options currently available to residents of west central Houston. Well, there you have it: we should believe everything they say. Case closed. No Walmart. Here's a link I found with some more information about what went on in the meeting: http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/09-02-10-mayor-annise-parker-refuses-to-defend-the-380-agreement/