s3mh

Do you have the section nos. for these? I cannot find what you are describing.

Arguably, renters pay taxes indirectly. But the landlord is the one who is on the hook for the taxes. Otherwise, this is accurate. But, in Houston, so many neighborhoods have been ruined by lack of planning, that when, as Ayn Rand would put it, "productive" people are seen as having the ability to influence development in their neighborhood, the, again, Ayn Rand's words, "unproductive" people resent the idea that the "productive" people have a voice when "unproductive" people don't. Thus, people cast scorn on the Stop Ashby Highrise people because they were largely a group of very wealthy and influential people who were able to throw enough sand in the gears to get the development modified and probably defeated (although the developers say they will still build). Likewise, people see the Heights residents as having some unfair advantage because they are better off than those who want to shop at Wal-Mart. But, your conclusion is spot on. The Heights and Westend residents should not have to fund (directly or indirectly) and bear the burden of a Wal-Mart that they do not want.

Then what are you saying? So what if a 15k sq ft Trader Joes has more trips per sq ft than a 150k sq ft Wal-Mart? Reading comprehension is a virtue. But, there has to be something to comprehend. I am not imposing my version of morality on the community. I am organizing with people who share my view of morality to bring about change through the government leaders we elected. That is how we got civil rights, child labor laws, and consumer protections. If you disagree with my morals, you can contact your elected officials and tell them that you want your tax dollars to support Wal-Mart. But, you cannot tell me that I have no right to do the opposite.

There are no non-disclosure agreements in this deal. Ainbinder and Wal-Mart have been speaking publicly about the deal for weeks. Ainbinder rejected HEB's bid in favor of Wal-Mart's bid. Ainbinder released drafts of the site plan. Both sides have retained counsel. That is not "just talk". I did not mistate the conclusion. An average Wal-Mart supercenter generates and average of 10k trips per-day. I did not say that the proposed Wal-Mart at I-10 would generate 10k trips per-day. It may very well generate more because of its visibility on the heavily traveled I-10 corridor. People going to Wal-Mart from either direction on I-10 are going to turn down Yale. If they go down Heights, they will have to cut accross Kohler or Center and sit through a bunch of lights. The fraction of drivers that will do this will not mitigate the traffic impact on Yale, especially considering that there is no left turn on Heights from eastbound Washington and the preference of most commuters to use Yale to avoid the train crossing on Heights. You can provide all the weak rationalizations you can come up with, but the undisputable fact is that a Wal-Mart supercenter will bring way more traffic than a grocery store, and Yale St., Heights and Kohler are not suited to handle that traffic. The Wal-Mart supercenter concept is a suburban concept. They put them out in undeveloped areas where the land is cheap because they are so huge and need tons of land and create massive amounts of traffic. Wal-Mart's sales have not been growing at the rate shareholders want, so they are now going to try to cram supercenters into urban areas. it won't work. Yale St. is not FM 1960. The proposed development is less than one mile from the hike and bike trail crossing and a school crossing. Finally, it is my neighborhood. I drive Yale every day to work. I cross Yale every day when I run. My kids will cross Yale every day when they are old enough to start school. My wife rides her bike down Heights to the bayou all the time.

Ten times more? Are you really saying a little Trader Joes would have the same impact as a Wal-Mart Supercenter? Now you are really going out on a limb with that one.

Since when did morals not count anymore? It is funny how you hear endless talk about how people in the US have lost their moral center and how we need to return to family values. But, when it comes to business, values are just 60s hippy junk that should be crushed in the name of profits for shareholders. Morals do matter. Target avoided major opposition by approaching the community and listening to concerns from the neighborhood before the development started. That is partly why you don't see a giant superstore and have the bike path going through the development. By contrast, Wal-Mart, Ainbinder and the City laid low and didn't start listening to the community until the uproar started. Traffic on Yale will be miserable with 5 lights in the space of a half mile from I-10 to Washington and increased traffic from the new I-10E exit. And who knows how traffic engineers will handle left turns amongst that mess. According to the Institute for Traffic Engineers, an average Wal-Mart will generate an average of 10,000 car trips per day. http://www.againstthewal.com/studies/MarkWolfeBigBoxCCMeasureCalcs021004.htm The property on Yale has no direct access to the new feeder. Most everyone that wants to go to the proposed Wal-Mart will have to go on Yale St. and come back out Yale. Yale will be a mess. With Wal-Mart supercenters going in at I-10 and Silber and 45 and Crosstimbers, there is no reason to give Ainbinder and Wal-Mart taxpayer handouts to put a Wal-Mart where it does not fit and has major opposition. There are now 3500+ members of the Stop Wal-Mart facebook groups. Meetings are scheduled, people are lining up to speak before City council, and the City is starting to realize that they can't ignore those who are opposed.

A Wal-Mart supercenter is anywhere from 150,000 sq ft to over 200,000. The average Trader Joe's is about 10,000 sq ft to 15,000 sq ft. There is simply no comparison in terms of burden on the neighborhood between a Trader Joe's and a Wal-Mart supercenter.

At a very basic level, the issue is democracy. The latest word on the development is that Ainbinder is negotiating with the City for tax incentives in exchange for Ainbinder making the infrastructure improvements that are necessary to cram a Wal-Mart supercenter into the lot off of Yale. So, this is not simply an issue of whether Ainbinder can do what it wants with its land. This is an issue of whether tax dollars are going to be used to support bringing a Wal-Mart to the development. The City is under no duty to give Ainbinder anything. The tax incentives must be approved by our elected representatives. Our elected representatives are supposed to listen to what the community wants and act accordingly. Once tax dollars are involved in the development, the community has a right to bring moral, aesthetic concerns to their elected representatives. And the concerns are so much more than that. It is much more about the traffic, drainage, burden on fire and police, as well as not wanting to see suburban big box development crammed into an area that is just not suited for that kind of development. Yale is not FM 1960. The development will be less than a mile from where the hike and bike trail crosses Yale and from a school crossing further north. Wal-Mart supercenters are designed for neighborhood where the commercial areas are completely separate from the residential areas. The location on Yale is just too close to neighborhoods and puts too much traffic onto streets that are really residential arteries and not big wide feeder roads. So, this is not a question of whether people are depriving Ainbinder of their investment backed expectations to such a degree that it is a constitutional taking. This is a question of whether tax dollars will be used to support a development that has significant opposition in the community. Unless Ainbinder is willing to pay their own way, the community has a seat at the table.

I drove yale to Crosstimbers and got just over 4.5 Anyone living north of 20th is closer to that location. Anyone living south of 20th would have an extra few minutes to drive to either Silber or Crosstimbers. The point is that the burden of the Yale location is unwarranted when there will be two new locations within very close proximity. We are not talking about making people drive 30-40 minutes to have access to a Wal-Mart supercenter. We are talking about an extra 5-10 minutes max.

Channel 2 is also supposed to run a story on the Wal-Mart at Yale.

ABC13 is supposed to run a story on the burgeoning Yale St. Wal-Mart resistance tonight at 5:30.

As noted in the link above, the developer hasn't even done a traffic study, and you think I have to have one in order to make plainly obvious points to anyone who lives in the neighborhood and drives the streets? No one has posted links to a traffic study showing the additional lights, turn lanes and traffic will have no adverse impact on the Washington/Heights/Yale area. As it currently is, the intersections at Yale/Heights and Washington can barely move rush hour traffic through. And it doesn't take a traffic engineer to see how bad the current traffic plan is. There will be two lights at I-10 and Yale for feeder traffic. Then, just .13 miles south of that, there will be new lights for an extended Koehler St. The additional Koehler St. lights will be just a 1/4 mi from the lights for Center St. That means from Yale, just north of I-10, to Washington there will 5 sets of traffic lights within 1/2 mi. Also, the proposed extension of Koehler will have three lights within under .1 mi. High traffic from Wal-Mart could grid-lock across Yale and Heights, which would then build back to feeder road traffic. And that doesn't even take into consideration how people will make left turns from Koehler. When the time is right, those of us who oppose the development will commission our own traffic studies. But, for now, it doesn't take a traffic engineer to be able to look at what is proposed and see that it is completely unreasonble. As for the location, just look at a map. The proposed Yale location is roughly 4 miles from I-10 and Silber and 4 miles from I-45 and Crosstimbers. Take a compass and draw circles around each location, and you will see the overlap is generally around 2-3 miles out. That means that most people living near the proposed Yale location will still have a Wal-Mart within a few miles. Unfortunately, if you are going to require definitive proof before you decide whether to support or oppose the Wal-Mart, you will end up finding out first hand what the burden will be when the Wal-Mart is completed. By then, it will be too late. There are numerous success stories of people opposing a new Wal-Mart, but not so much luck trying to get a finished Wal-Mart to get out of town.

It is not against Wal-Mart. It is against the Wal-Mart proposed for Yale st. The addition of a Wal-Mart supercenter will be a tremendous burden on the neighborhood (traffic, fire/police, light pollution, potential loss of businesses and impairment of property values). The proposed site is not on the feeder. Traffic will have to come on to Yale and Heights to get to and from I-10. These roads and intersections are already very stressed. Wal-Mart will push them beyond their limits. And then there are plenty of people in the Heights who oppose Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart's practices and policies. So, placing a Wal-Mart on Yale will be a substantial burden. Many on this board have argued that people in the immediate area are elitists and hypocrats who are going to deprive people in the area the opportunity to save money at Wal-Mart (it is for another thread whether Wal-Mart is the value to consumers that it claims to be). But, then it has come to light that two additional Wal-Marts have been proposed within a few miles of the Heights. Thus, no one in the Heights will be deprived of a convenient Wal-Mart. The question then becomes whether the burden on the community is worth the marginal benefit of having a Wal-Mart that is 2-3 miles closer than the other two. The cluster of Wal-Marts begs the question of Wal-Mart's motivation in having three stores in very close proximity that will cannibalize customers from each other. And why Wal-Mart would want to put a super center in an area that is not surrounded by their typical demographic (people earning $35,000 a year)? The answer to that question is down the street: Target. Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Target remains as pretty much Wal-Mart's sole competitor. Thus, it seems pretty clear that Wal-Mart wants the Yale location not to serve the residents of River Oaks and the Heights, or outlying areas that will be served by the other proposed locations, but to take market share from a successful Target location. If Wal-Mart wants to do that by taking over an empty lot along an interstate feeder that is already piled high with big box stores, fine. Have at it. But to do that at the foot of the Heights and right in the middle of the resurging Washington corridor is bad for the community. The Washington corridor has come back to life because there are no big box stores. People live in the Heights because it is far away from suburban sprawl and homogeneous big box stores. Our neighborhoods should not be spoiled in order for Wal-Mart to play its corporate power games with Target. Wal-Mart is well suited for I-10 and Silber and 45 and Crosstimbers. Plenty of big box development on those feeders. It is not suited for Yale. People actually like to run/walk/bike from the Heights to the Bayou. We want to be able to go under I-10 without risking our lives. We do not want I-10 and Yale/Heights to turn into I-10/Silber or 45/Crosstimbers. The Yale location is too close to residential neighborhoods and too much of a burden on the Yale/Heights/Washington traffic. And all that just so Wal-Mart can take a shot at Target.

Do you really think that Wal-Mart is only trying to do this in Houston?

It will do well for Wal-Mart. The store will dillute Target's market share at its Sawyer Heights. Investors will see that Wal-Mart's market share is increasing and Targets is not and will move their money over to Wal-Mart, driving the price of Wal-Mart's stock up and the opposite for Target's. Wal-Mart doesn't need to do well at the Yale location. They just need to take away Target's business. The only benefit to the residents who have to put up with the traffic, drainage problems, increased cost for additional fire and police, damage to local small business and destruction of the revitalization of the Washington corridor (no one will want to invest in opening new businesses on Washington when the intersection of Heights/Yale and Washington becomes gridlocked with Wal-Mart traffic) will be saving a few minutes in the car. There is a big difference between what is good business for Wal-Mart and what is good business for the citizens of Houston. Just because Wal-Mart wants something doesn't mean everyone in the City has to roll over and give them every variance and permit they want. If the community doesn't need three Wal-Marts within 8 miles, then the community shouldn't bend over backwards to cut new roads, add traffic lights, clogging important intersections for residents, and so on for a store the community doesn't need.

Wal-Mart is also putting a location in at Silber and I-10: http://www.license.state.tx.us/ABDataSearch/SearchResultDetail.asp?1=EABPRJA9815960 If Wal-Mart is also going ahead with the Crosstimbers and I-45 location, then there will be 3 Wal-Marts within a 8 mile radius. Thus, the Yale location is not needed and is of no real benefit to anyone, except Wal-Mart's business strategy to compete with Target. Our neighborhoods are not playgrounds for megacorporations to play games to make their 10-Qs look good to investors.

You brought up the fact that I am new to this board in order to belittle my viewpoints. I just made light of your ad hominem attack. And I can understand how HAIF would get boring when it is dominated by a small cadre of ultra-pro development people who can't stand it when someone challenges them. And I have not been defeated. The fight against Wal-Mart is just beginning. The West End civic club had a meeting with representatives of the developer (Ainbinder) and the local and state officeholders last night. At that meeting it was very clear that the developer understood that a single monster suburban Wal-Mart would be a major problem for residents in the area. Both the representatives from city council and the developer said that they did not want to shoehorn a suburban Wal-Mart in the middle of the West End/Heights/Washington corridor. So, while you were congratulating yourself at slaying internet windmills, the Wal-Mart opposition has been making major strides in having their legitmate concerns heard and addressed. Word from the developer was that no deal on the development has been made with Wal-Mart yet. My bet is that Wal-Mart will balk at having something other than their usual big box and walk away from the deal. They won't want to pay a premium for the cost of environmental mitigation and aesthetic upgrading from their usual ugly boxes and won't want to compromise on size. So, while you were arguing that it would be a savage injustice to require people to drive an extra 5-8 minutes to go to Crosstimbers instead of Yale to visit Wal-Mart, the Wal-Mart resistance has already taken real action to stop the development. And pointing out spelling errors on a message board is just tacky.

You clearly have much to learn about market cannabilization. Wal-Mart isn't going to spend piles of cash to compete with itself. People who will shop Wal-Mart during lunch from their work downtown are the same people who would shop at suburban locations at night or on the weekend. Wal-Mart has no altruistic motives. And the point regarding the shopping time is that those customers are in a hurry and not likely to fill a shopping cart to the rim with product. Why pile all that traffic into the Heights, when people working downtown can just go up Travis to I-45 and be at Crosstimbers in the same time (more likely less as getting through Heights/I-10 and Waugh/Washington intersections will be a nightmare)? Wal-Mart will wipe Canino's, Michoacana and even Fiesta off the map the same way they have cleaned out town squares across America. They will come into the neighborhood, undercut competitors (predatory pricing is Wal-Mart's specialty) and then bring prices back up when the competition has folded. The reference to 20th street is pretty obvious to anyone who actually lives in this city. You haven't provided any data to support your notion that the residents of River Oaks, Tangelwood, Upper Kirby, Rice Military and the Heights will give up on Sur La Table and Williams Sonoma in favor of Wal-Mart's Mainstay aluminum cookware. So, I do not feel any obligation to provide my own. The Heights/West End area has undergone a tremendous tranformation over the past fifteen years. Washington Ave used to be an economic wasteland. Now, restaurants and shops are flocking to new developments on the street. Drop a Wal-Mart in the middle of that, and all bets are off. The need to have Wal-Mart's cheap goods a few minutes closer than the Crosstimbers location does not outweigh the need to have thriving inner city neighborhoods that attract businesses to downtown Houston. I have hosted many visitors, both business and family, in Houston. People are always very impressed by the development that is going on inside the loop. People's impression of our abundance of big box stores outside the loop is, well, not so favorable. Finally, I apologize for joining HAIF to dare to express my views on this issue with those who have been posting for much longer than I have. I assumed people on this board would welcome opposing viewpoints and debate. But it looks like this is just another message board where conservatives try to shout down anyone who dares to oppose big business.

That is the largest pile of supposition I have ever seen. The Crosstimbers location is barely 4 miles from the Yale location. By definition that means market cannabilization between the two stores. And the further out you go (Gulfgate, NW, East end), the weaker the argument gets. All you are saying is that Wal-Mart should get to put a big ugly unsuitable Supercenter in my neighborhood so people can save 4-7 minutes in the car. And you are completely forgetting locations on the Gulf fwy and 290 that are far easier to access than having to crunch through Downtown interchanges or mess with the 290/610 mess. As for the "lunchtime" shoppers, you have got to be kidding me. It takes a minimum of 20-25 minutes round trip to get to the location (I make the trip every day) and that is assuming that the magic traffic fairy finds a way to keep the intersection of Waugh/Heights Blvd and Washington from becoming permanent impenetrable gridlock with the addition of Wal-Mart. That gives you an absolute maximum of 30 min to make your way through a couple football fields worth of cheap Chinese goods. And chances are very strong that these consumers have been cannabalized from suburban Wal-Marts, meaning a net zero in terms of revenue. Finally, I am not saying Wal-Mart is being vindictive. I am saying that Wal-Mart is being Wal-Mart. They have had trouble competing directly with Target by trying to upscale their product lines and stores. So, they will use their size to compete with Target. A Target with no Wal-Mart nearby will always make more money than a Target with a Wal-Mart nearby. If Wal-Mart puts a store near every Target that is doing good business, they will hurt Target's bottom line. Bad numbers for Target means lower market capitalization means less money for advertising, expansion, and so on. Wal-Mart did this to kill off a number of local grocery and discount chains. They would open up as many competing stores as they could next to the targeted competitor chain, drop prices, operate at a loss if necessary, and then when the local chain folded, they would close up the duplicative location and raise prices.

I never argued that Wal-Mart causes more harm than good for people in the lower income bracket (funny you deamningly call them "poor" people). My point has always been that a Wal-Mart supercenter is inappropriate for the neighborhood and is not even needed in light of the Crosstimbers location. Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Wal-Mart has a long history of using their size to accomplish their business ends, from supply to retail. Wal-Mart just wants to throw sand into Target's gears.

And you dispute my demographics with what? Your own supposition? Very convincing. My understanding of the term is completely accurate. I did not make up anything. I have seen real data on property values, income levels, age, and education for the area. I have been involved in commercial real estate development inside the loop for years. Wal-Mart's data is a closely held secret. However, a leaked memo from Wal-Mart's ad agency revealed that Wal-Mart's attempt to appeal to shoppers of higher end products had failed. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3229759 The average Wal-Mart customer earns 35k a year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html Far more people fitting that demographic live north of 20th than south. Thus, 1) Wal-Mart's attempts at upscaling have failed; 2) Wal-Mart's main customer base lives closer to the new Crosstimbers location; and, ergo 3) the Yale location is directed at harming Target's business far more than benefitting those in the neighborhood who will have to deal with the increased traffic, drainage issues, increased demand on fire and police, and resulting damage to property values of living near a big, ugly Wal-Mart. We don't need it, we don't want it. Our tax dollars are needed to support it, our elected officials are needed to grant the variances. We have a right to block it in favor of a better suited development.

You are right. Wal-Mart does do very detailed studies of the markets it invades. And they know that the store on 45 and Crosstimbers will serve residents living north of 20th. They also know that the market that is south of 20th is very different from the market that is north of 20th (spare me the allegations of classism/elitism; these are indisputable demographics that I did not make up). The market south of 20th is not nearly as likely to shop at Wal-Mart and is also more likely to shop at Target or other smaller retailers and grocers. The people running Wal-Mart are very aware of these demographics. Thus, why would Wal-Mart want to drop a supercenter in an area that is not in their usual wheelhouse (i.e. lower to middle income suburbia)? Or, more pointedly, where was Wal-Mart when people were marketing the property that is now home to the Sawyer Heights Target? The answer is that Wal-Mart didn't give a crap about the inner-loop until its competitor, Target, started making money there. As Wal-Mart and many other companies have done many times over, they want the Yale location not because it will be profitable, but because it will reduce the profitability of their competitor's store. If you take away Target's profits, you weaken Target's ability to compete in terms of cost and market share (i.e. expanding locations). It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out. Thus, the point, again, is that the burden of the Yale location far outweighs its benefits because it will be largely duplicative of the Crosstimbers location for those who want to shop at Wal-Mart. So, there is no justification for handing out piles of variances and tax dollars to help Wal-Mart establish a store that is not needed by the community (because of the Crosstimbers location) and is really just a corporate power play on the part of Wal-Mart against its rival Target. If there were no plans to build at Crosstimbers, it would be a closer argument for or against. The Crosstimbers location makes it clear that there is just no reason to have the Yale location, especially given how poorly it fits in with the community.

There will be plenty of government intervention on behalf of Wal-Mart (feeder road, piles of variances needed, increased demand on water, sewer, electrical grid, police and fire). All of that will cost tax dollars. Tax payers have every right to have a say on land use issues. We live in a democracy, not a plutocracy. I just saw on the Free Press website that Wal-Mart is also planning a store at I-45 and Crosstimbers. That would mean that people living from about 20th st. northward in the Heights will either be closer to that location or have better highway access by either just hopping on 45 or 610-45 rather than rolling along at 35 mph through the Heights. For those south of 20th, we are talking about a difference of a mile or two between the two locations. Thus, this whole argument about depriving low income people of a convenient Wal-Mart location is simply crocodile tears. The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers. This is just about Wal-Mart using its corporate largesse to cram an unwanted, unneeded store down our throats so they can take a shot at Target's market share. I would bet that the revenues for a Yale store would not come close to stores in the burbs. I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

A. It certainly is an ad hominem attack now. I have lived paycheck to paycheck, lived on unemployment, and have earned less than the poverty level. When I needed to stretch my dollars, I stayed away from Wal-Mart. The local grocery specials always beat the pants off of Wal-Mart's prices. And close-out stores had much better clothing and housewares than Wal-Mart for the same or less than what Wal-Mart charged for their junk. Now that I make enough money to afford to live in the Heights (in a very small bungalow), I have the right to protect my property values and preserve the unique character of my neighborhood. Wal-Mart threatens that not because of its customer's ethnicity or economic demographic. Wal-Mart threatens the character of the Heights because the Heights is one of the few communities left in this City that doesn't follow the model of unwalkable neighborhoods with strip centers and big box stores. B. It could be said with equal force of logic that your translation of every argument into a class/race issue is nothing more than your own resentment of those who are successful. The economic fortunes of the economic and racial demographic you champion are directly tied to the ability of Houston to attract businesses to the downtown area. The availablity and quality of inner city neighborhoods for professionals has always been a sore spot when comparing Houston to other cities. The emergence of the Heights, Rice Military and other inner city neighborhoods has done a lot to improve Houston's ability to compete for business investment. Drop a Wal-Mart right in the middle of that and you have now taken a big step backwards. Sure, short term, there will be construction jobs, a few hundred low wage jobs and some cheaper goods for people in the inner loop. In the long run, Houston will lose business to other metropolitan areas because of our inability to wisely control development. In short, Houston can only grow so long as a city where we all just grin and bear it. C. The food reference is just a demonstration that you can make a fact based argument that something is bad for lower income people without being in the same income bracket. D. The bottom line to your argument is that Wal-Mart is terrible, but we all have to shut up and deal with it because Wal-Mart (allegedly) saves lower income people a few bucks (or, more specifically, a few minutes in the car). The truth is that the idea of community resistance to Wal-Mart being some sort of class/ethnic elitism or "tyranny" is nothing more than Wal-Mart PR flack. This is a battle between wealthy investors, Wal-Mart execs and shareholders and the people who live in the neighborhood, pay plenty of taxes and want to see development in Houston that is beneficial to all and not just a quick buck for developers and a chance for Wal-Mart execs to take a shot at Target's revenues.

1. HEB was interested in the property but was apparently outbid by Wal-Mart. This isn't a question of Wal-Mart or nothing. 2. I would take HEB over Wal-Mart every day. I have personally seen HEB write six and seven figure checks to support local events. Can't say the same about Wal-Mart. 3. There is absolutely no hypocrisy involved when someone makes a valid argument on behalf of those who are in a lower income bracket than they are. You do not have to make minimum wage to validly argue that US agriculture policy makes healthy foods (fruits and vegatables) more expensive than fatty, highly processed foods, which is currently causing an obesity epidemic in lower income communities in this country. The sole purpose of bringing up income is to claim that the people that earn a decent living are incapable of seeing beyond their own self interest. That is a character attack, not a valid argument. 4. Plenty of anti-Wal-Mart perspectives on here as well.