Marksmu

Saw a trailer and some excavation equipment showed up on the Wal Mart side of the road yesterday....looks like they are about to start work. Can't wait to get the new WalMart - I hope it has a big gun selection!!

I think Walmart is paying S3MH say outlandish things she knows are ridiculous and stupid so that their store stays in the news and on peoples minds....for every 1 person who dislikes Walmart, there are 3 more who will shop there....so the more they are talked about the better it is for them! S3MH is probably getting some kind of kickback...otherwise there is no reason to continue on with her ridiculous and frequently debunked arguments.

You still seem unable to separate Ainbinder from Walmart....Walmart is doing nothing other than leasing space....Ainbinder is the entity that all of your rage should be directed towards....Walmart apparently is doing nothing more than leasing some space from someone...If the space is not adequate its not Walmarts responsibility to make it so, its the lessors job.

You can hate Walmart all day long, but there is no doubt that as inflation rises, Walmart will be better positioned than any other retailer to leverage its size and buying abilities to keep prices lower than its competitors. Have you seen the price of a Steak recently? A steak is up almost 50% from a year ago....Walmart will be able to eat some of that cost in order to offer it cheaper than their consumers. They do this constantly...more stores, more saturation. Fortunately for Houston, there is enough competition that Walmarts business plan will never shut down all the competition....but your hatred of Walmart will have you paying more for your food than if you shopped elsewhere. Target may be cheaper now, but its unlikely they will be able to eat the inflation that is coming down the food lines as well as Walmart. I am getting almost 50% more for my live cows this year than I did last year at the auction....I can tell you right now that the feed lot is not going to take a lower profit margin, and the shipping is more expensive thanks to higher fuel prices...add to that our brilliant ethanol usage which drives up feed costs and reduces mpg and there is simply no possible way that food prices are not going to rise even higher. Walmart is well positioned to take advantage of that exact scenario....when times are good people dont bargain shop nearly as much as they do when times are tight. This is a good scenario for Walmart....

AGAIN with the political yard sign issue....have you not beat that horse to death yet? There are no fewer than 10 posts telling you that it was sarcastic and done with the intent to get a rise out of people, but you keep bringing it up. And you actually ARE wrong more often that you are right, and 99.9% of the times when you are wrong and then someone proves you are wrong with facts and petty things like supporting evidence, you make no response, and then 5 posts later you repeat the same factual inaccuracy. It is frustrating beyond belief, because you seem to want debate, as long as the momentum of the debate is on your side. When the tides change, you no longer debate, you just ignore...that is not debating. It is sticking your head in the sand. Nobody believes a liar even when he is telling the truth. That is why nobody believes you. Everything you say about Walmart may be true, but considering how often you were either lying or just completely wrong in the historic thread, it is not a giant leap to figure out why nobody believes you about walmart either...except for those people who obviously share your hatred of walmart....they might believe the sky is falling as long as we could blame Walmart.

I am surprised to see that Huang voted in favor of the ordinance; he seemed to have realized that there were major flaws with it in previous council meetings. I am however very relieved to see that council is at the very least paying attention to the people! What comes now is going to be interesting....I do not know what the planning department is going to do with it? The planning folks do not want to change it, they have already recommended adopting it in its entirety. Hopefully a real yes/no vote can actually be had that is all I really want. I would absolutely love to see the real support for this ordinance. I would gladly walk away saying I have been outvoted if they can prove to me that they have 66% of the property without including the city owned properties in their support. They do not have it...they do not even have 51% as originally required. So what comes next is sure to be more partisan politics. A win for the anti-ordinance crowd for sure. Where it goes from here I anxiously await.

You hit the nail on the head. The original ordinance with the 90 day wait, that required the HAHC to make suggestions, was palatable, because you could still do what you liked to your own property in due time. The city & your neighbors had an opportunity to offer alternatives, and suggestions, and you had the legal right to say nope...and do what you want. That is community driven. That is how it SHOULD work....and that is where the actual support was! Once the no means no was added and the HAHC has to approve everything, the support became less than 35% of homeowners, and the city knew it. That is precisely why they wont allow a real vote. The change to the ordinance was material, that is why they offered the "unprecedented" option to withdraw.....they just offered the option in a way and a time that they knew with near 100% certainty they would prevail. Our elected officials have failed us, because they have their pretentious head so far up their anus they cant see anything at all, just like most of the ordinance supporters.

There is absolutely no legitimate argument that can be made in support of the "survey" process for purposes of repeal. Anyone who says that the "survey" process was legitimate is a liar...period. Facts: 1. It took supporters of the ordinance YEARS to get to 51% and they cheated by using city owned property to do it. 2. It took opponents less than 30 days to get 10% to agree with them 3. An intentionally confusing "survey" was mailed during the holidays with a very short period of time for return still got nearly 25% in all districts 4. The "survey" was offered only in English, even though there is a substantial spanish speaking population 5. An un-returned survey counted as a vote in favor of the historic district (By far the most egregious insult to democracy I have ever witnessed) 6. Owners of more than 1 contiguous tract, did not get equal voting rights as a percentage of their land ownership. 7. The City used the Mayor and other taxpayer funded employees to fight the taxpayers. 8. No vote was ever taken to determine how many taxpayers actually Supported the districts. 9. No resurvey was ever conducted to determine if the signatures on the original petition still owned the property the city was counting as a vote in their favor. That is not a legitimate process. It is the most illegitimate process I can even think of. There is more, and if people can add to the list, I would like to compile as many problems with the survey process as possible....We can just re-post the list in response to the illegitimate arguments of S3MH....He/She will not be able to refute them with facts...only emotional arguments.

Did not mean to neg rep your post....

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18. Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district" That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

I have a feeling that you and Jones have more in common than you have differences. Just because she is on the right side of an issue for once in her life does not make her a viable candidate for anything other than a Democrat controlled district.

So if the Ordinance was not originally designed to control paint color, why then did they have to go back and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE IT?? Paint color control was allowed in the original draft and specifically excluded in the version that became law. The anti-ordinance crowd is the only reason that was modified. If it were not for them, it would now be law that you have to ask some donkey's permission to change your house color! The government has an extremely poor track record on abuse of power and use of power for personal gains....I want them to have as little control over myself and my property as possible. You support the ordinance because you perceive it to do what you want. But when there is a new government in power who does not agree with you any longer, how do you think you will feel when an ordinance is passed requiring you to tear down your old well maintained shack if any repair requiring a permit ever has to be made? After all a very good case can be made that the older well maintained shacks are huge fire hazards, and a danger to the public. Many have extremely old wiring without grounds, many have uninsulated aluminum wiring, they are old dry wood just ready for a match, none of them have the newer fire retardant drywall or other features that make the PUBLIC safer....you see where I am going? It does not take a huge imagination to come up with a reason that we the public can create to cause you to lose the rights on YOUR home....You got your way this time...but power is fickle...those who abuse it lose, and then the next administration comes in and usually goes to far in their efforts to undue the previous administrations problems. Look to Washington. Everyone hated Bush, now we have something far worse, a polar opposite.....wait till 2012....if you are an Obama lover you are very likely to HATE the next president.....going too far always has repercussions.

There is a subway at the Kroger on 11th and Shepherd....I don't know if that is Merchant's Park, but its new. Its only been there about 3 months, maybe. There is one empty storefront between the new subway and the recently remodeled Kroger. Then the subway, and then an auto parts store, etc....working your way to the Chinese Buffet at the end.

Sadly, when you point out the specifics and the EXACT wording of the ordinance to the preservationist crowd they call you a liar. Then you quote the language, show how ambiguous it actually is, and how the HAHC can easily abuse the ordinance and its language, and they call you a liar again. You can not win with these people...the truth is not persuasive...they do not care how they get what they want, or who they trample to get it... When the truth, even a very clear bad truth, is not persuasive people naturally start to exaggerate to make their point, and get some attention to their arguments. That is all that has happened here...you get a little crazy to draw attention to your cause....look at the Union protesters....they are only making news because they are acting crazy and not giving up....if it was calm and orderly the news organizations would not care.

Mine was recorded properly but I did not fax it. I returned it by mail....

Looking at the repeal maps....from City of Houston...its interesting that they did not post Heights South....I believe that is where the most opposition was...I wonder what is holding up that process? http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html I like that they have shown which properties opted out. Gives you an easy way to judge the intelligence or apathy of your neighbors.

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

I have been intimately involved in and constructed 3 concrete tilt wall buildings in my life. I have had no fewer than 10 traffic studies conducted, and have personally been involved in a 3 year litigation revolving around highway condemnation that included a bridge over a creek. I know exactly how accurate traffic studies are, and I know exactly how willing a traffic study firm is to manipulate the data to the liking of their clients. That is a very large issue in a highway condemnation case, because the higher the traffic count, the more valuable your property when it is being taken from you. However, my point had nothing to do with that at all. I simply called your statistic that the walmart will bring lots of traffic wrong. I stated that the walmart will not be responsible for the traffic, the feeder will be. I agree with you that the addittion of the feeder will make it much worse, but that is the extent to me agreeing with anything you say. Walmart is going to be allowed to build because they had their traffic studies done before the expansion...Its not illegal dishonest or anything else. They followed the rules. YOu just dont like it. You really should qualify your statements more and speak in less absolutes as I told you before...because not only do I know how studies/permiting/environmental issues work, I am involved in them daily as part of my job.

I dont know about this particular bridge, but most bridges that are not interstate bridges have their weight capacity located on the side of the road about 100' short of the bridge itself giving a truck time to stop and turn around if it is too heavy for the bridge. Even though I drive over this bridge daily I have never looked for the sign on this bridge to see what it says as far as capacities.

SHHHH - you are using logic! We do not use logic while opposing Walmart or Historic districts.

Why would traffic counts be moot once the building starts? That makes no sense. Construction traffic is negligible...were talking about an additional couple of hundred cars per day...so what? That is an insignificant number. The best gauge of how bad it will be is for the traffic counts to be done after the feeder is complete and before the Walmart opens....you can even subtract the average difference from the construction if you want since you have that number as well...we would have 3 snap shots. 1) before expansion of freeway 2) after expansion 3) after Walmart. I think if you took those numbers you would find the Walmart really added very few cars/problems. The existing traffic infrastructure is fine without the new feeder road. Add the feeder road and then we have the problem. Walmart is not creating the problem that will cause the infrastructure to be insufficient...they are merely working with it....since they are not creating it, why should they be responsible for remedying it? They are willing to remedy the problems they create, but they did not create the future problem, TXDOT is creating it, and accordingly TXDOT (me and you) will get to pay to fix it. You want Walmart to fix it because it would feel like some moral victory at this point to stick it to them...but that is because you dont want Walmart, you will fight tooth and nail to stop them.

Also, this will luckily be measurable. The feeder is underway, and the Walmart is not. Construction traffic to the Walmart will be very low. It takes surprisingly few people/vehicles to build a concrete tilt wall building, I have had three of over 44,000 square feet each built....30-50 people max at any one time until the final build out starts....We should be able to get real hard numbers after the feeder construction long before Walmart opens to its first of 16,000 cars/day.

That is a poorly written argument. I use Yale every day coming and going...I cut over to Memorial and take it to 45 to go South to avoid the traffic at I-10 and 45 South....99/100 its faster than taking the freeway. I know this because I timed it out of utter frustration for almost 2 full weeks in each direction. It is much worse in the morning heading towards downtown than it is in the afternoon heading towards Katy. So where does the traffic come from? How bout the people who exit I-10 East turn right and take Memorial to 45 like I do now from 11th? How bout those who do it to avoid I-10 into downtown? (slower, but more consistent), or how bout all the people who are at 14th or 15th on Yale and want to go West??? They are currently forced to goto Shepherd or cut through small streets to get behind the entrance ramp at Heights... This new feeder is going to add a huge amount of traffic to the intersection at Yale. The 16,000 cars per day to the WalMart will look like nothing compared to the increases from people who like to use on ramps as shortcuts around traffic. The walmart, will certainly add cars, but nothing like the feeder road expansion. I posted that before I read the conclusions from the traffic study....before it was even posted. Common sense and my own driving habits tell me that people are going to look for short cuts....another feeder is another short cut to somewhere for someone...I dont care about the Walmart, but Im not happy about the feeder. However, all I will do is state my position, because nothing anyone does will change either of them at all. Its out of our hands.

I actually believe there will be a substantial increase of traffic on Yale in the coming months, but it will not be because of the Wal Mart...it will be because of the Feeder being extended from Yale to Shepherd. I also anticipate the Anti-WalMart folks will use the increases in traffic because of the feeder as proof they were right about the WalMart increasing traffic on Yale. I hope the feeder is completed a long time before the Walmart opens and someone does another traffic count, because I honestly do believe the feeder will at least double, possibly triple the traffic on Yale & Heights.....but I do not believe the WalMart will have a noticeable effect.

I've bold faced some relevant portions for you to consider.... Do you see the contradictions here? An intentional tort suit is a means of collecting above and beyond a medical malpractice suit (rape, operating while drunk, operating on cocaine). A criminal indictment will ensure that a doctor no longer practices medicine. BOTH are means of keeping bad doctors out of practice, and neither are medical malpratice. I am also willing to bet licensing boards, even ones made up of doctors, will pull the license of doctors convicted or found liable for the above offenses. Finally - most insurance does not cover intentional acts, or criminal ones (disclaimer - I am not a med mal insurance professional so I could be mistaken), so if found liable or guilty of those offenses, it would indeed bankrupt a doctor. And I have no problems with my credibility here....not knowing exactly how a medical malpractice suit collects damages does not make me any less credible on a very simple topic of strict interpretation of a city ordinance...Many civil cases do allow fees/costs of court to be born by the losing party when they are found to have commited the acts intentionally...if med mal does not, so what. I was wrong, its not a big deal. I readily admit when I am wrong...I don't have any issue with it all. But, I do not accept your word for it, and I am not going to waste my time proving you right. I really do not currently care about Med Mal, its irrelevant to me, and its irrelevant to all your other anti-walmart, pro historic ordinance arguments. If you would like to go treading back through the historic ordinance thread, in there you will see that I admitted I was exaggerating to the political party yard signs..... The difference in credibility between you and me is that when dealing with the ordinance I use facts, the ordinance, and I showed you clearly how the wording allows abuse...how the actual words of the ordinance allow abuse, how its written broadly enough to enable abuse...you just said nuh-uh that wont happen Annise Parker said so....I know that when dealing with ordinances the words are strictly interpreted....comments do not matter, and nothing said at a meeting by the dishonest ordinance people who hosted it matter either. It is not a defense that they told you it was allowed....the only thing that matters is the words as they are written. When dealing with WalMart - I know for a fact that that ONLY person at fault for you being fat, and lazy, is YOU. Its not Big Ag like you said (I proved you wrong with your cattle statistics), its not Big Grocery like you said, its not the federal government subsidies like you said...its the lazy people who are unwilling to change. The more you speak the more I am certain that everything you pretend to be an authority on is coming directly from a Michael Moore movie....I did not see the health care movie he put out, so I assume Med Mal was covered in it since you seem to think you are an authority on it.