Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[s3mh]

Well your in luck - we dont need med mal to punish those doctors who rape women, operate while intoxicated or drugs...we have criminal statutes that deal with all of those situations.

I dont know enough about it all to fully go line by line proving how wrong you are about everything you have written, but basing it on your history of being emotional, irrational, and flat out wrong 99% of the time, I am going to assume everything posted above is complete and utter rubbish...

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to get into arguments, you have to back them. You can't just cry "you are always wrong, therefore I must be right that attorney's fees are recovered from defendants in medical malpractice cases and don't have to prove it." And why is it you don't know enough about it to prove me wrong, but know enough to post about it in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Face it. You were completely wrong about attorney's fees in medmal cases. Just like everything else, you have no trouble pretending to be an authority on legal matters but just start calling people names when you go too far and can't back it up. Take a look at Tex. Civ Prac and Rem Code 38.001. Start there and let me know when you find the part about bifurcating attorney's fees and damages (hint: courts bifurcate the issue of punitive damages--might want to admit you mistakenly thought the same for attorney's fees).

[samagon]

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to get into arguments, you have to back them. You can't just cry "you are always wrong, therefore I must be right that attorney's fees are recovered from defendants in medical malpractice cases and don't have to prove it." And why is it you don't know enough about it to prove me wrong, but know enough to post about it in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Oh. My. God.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Practice. What. You. Preach.

[Marksmu]

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to get into arguments, you have to back them. You can't just cry "you are always wrong, therefore I must be right that attorney's fees are recovered from defendants in medical malpractice cases and don't have to prove it." And why is it you don't know enough about it to prove me wrong, but know enough to post about it in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Face it. You were completely wrong about attorney's fees in medmal cases. Just like everything else, you have no trouble pretending to be an authority on legal matters but just start calling people names when you go too far and can't back it up. Take a look at Tex. Civ Prac and Rem Code 38.001. Start there and let me know when you find the part about bifurcating attorney's fees and damages (hint: courts bifurcate the issue of punitive damages--might want to admit you mistakenly thought the same for attorney's fees).

You mean like I just proved you wrong with the criminal statues that easily handle intentional misdeeds by an OBGYN??? Are you aware that not only is an intentional act against another a tort, but if the intentional act is outside of the consent to treat (which it always is if an OBGYN is intentionally hurting, raping, etc) that was granted, it is also a battery? Hmmm...guess you just overlooked that after getting proved wrong for the 99th time.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have no big ego or pride issue....if I'm wrong about the fees in medical malpractice, an area in which I do not practice and am not familiar with, then I am wrong. I do not need to spend hours looking it up to make you happy. You have changed your facts, and lied on more than 80% of your posts here...forgive me for not trusting a thing you say. When you have a reputation for being dishonest people stop believing what you are saying, even if what you are saying is true.

[SilverJK]

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. If you are going to get into arguments, you have to back them. You can't just cry "you are always wrong, therefore I must be right that attorney's fees are recovered from defendants in medical malpractice cases and don't have to prove it." And why is it you don't know enough about it to prove me wrong, but know enough to post about it in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Face it. You were completely wrong about attorney's fees in medmal cases. Just like everything else, you have no trouble pretending to be an authority on legal matters but just start calling people names when you go too far and can't back it up. Take a look at Tex. Civ Prac and Rem Code 38.001. Start there and let me know when you find the part about bifurcating attorney's fees and damages (hint: courts bifurcate the issue of punitive damages--might want to admit you mistakenly thought the same for attorney's fees).

Face it. You are pretty much always completely wrong/misguided/misinformed/inconsistant/misleading. Pot/kettle etc.

[s3mh]

You mean like I just proved you wrong with the criminal statues that easily handle intentional misdeeds by an OBGYN??? Are you aware that not only is an intentional act against another a tort, but if the intentional act is outside of the consent to treat (which it always is if an OBGYN is intentionally hurting, raping, etc) that was granted, it is also a battery? Hmmm...guess you just overlooked that after getting proved wrong for the 99th time.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have no big ego or pride issue....if I'm wrong about the fees in medical malpractice, an area in which I do not practice and am not familiar with, then I am wrong. I do not need to spend hours looking it up to make you happy. You have changed your facts, and lied on more than 80% of your posts here...forgive me for not trusting a thing you say. When you have a reputation for being dishonest people stop believing what you are saying, even if what you are saying is true.

You don't need to look up the fact that you can't recover attorney's fees and expert fees in med mal cases from defendants to make me happy. You need to do that to save your own credibility. You have claimed to be an attorney on this site and used that to get an audience about the historic ordinance. Yet, you then claim that the HAHC will be able to tell you what political signs you can put in people's yard (constitu . . .). You attack the valid criticism of medmal reform on the grounds that attorney's fees and expert fees do not come out of the plaintiff's recovery. But you refuse to back it up when challenged on the grounds that the person challenging you doesn't have credibility. If you want people to believe anything you have to say, and they shouldn't, you can either come clean and admit that you just made a guess and were wrong. Otherwise, it is clear that you do not care whether you are right or wrong and cannot be trusted 100% of the time.

And you did nothing other than strawman an argument on intentional torts. I never said it was impossible to recover from doctors who commit intentional torts. I just said that doctors are human and are not some special species of the human race. I gave real examples of some very human wrongdoing that doctors have committed over the years.

[Marksmu]

I've bold faced some relevant portions for you to consider....

Fourth, Drs are insured and are rarely bankrupted, muchless financially inconvenienced by lawsuits. The insurance covers attorney's fees, expenses and indemnity. Unless a doctor is underinsured, they will usually only be out the deductible.

And, finally, some doctors do hurt people intentionally. There are cases of OBGYNs raping women, drs operating while they were drunk or on cocaine and drs ignoring patients' problems in order to keep their social schedule. Doctors are people. Most are good, but some are bad. Malpractice lawsuits are the only way to keep the bad ones out of practice. Licensing boards are made up of doctors and never pull licenses.

And you did nothing other than strawman an argument on intentional torts. I never said it was impossible to recover from doctors who commit intentional torts. I just said that doctors are human and are not some special species of the human race. I gave real examples of some very human wrongdoing that doctors have committed over the years.

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.

[Heights Homeowner]

You don't need to look up the fact that you can't recover attorney's fees and expert fees in med mal cases from defendants to make me happy. You need to do that to save your own credibility. You have claimed to be an attorney on this site and used that to get an audience about the historic ordinance. Yet, you then claim that the HAHC will be able to tell you what political signs you can put in people's yard (constitu . . .). You attack the valid criticism of medmal reform on the grounds that attorney's fees and expert fees do not come out of the plaintiff's recovery. But you refuse to back it up when challenged on the grounds that the person challenging you doesn't have credibility. If you want people to believe anything you have to say, and they shouldn't, you can either come clean and admit that you just made a guess and were wrong. Otherwise, it is clear that you do not care whether you are right or wrong and cannot be trusted 100% of the time.

And you did nothing other than strawman an argument on intentional torts. I never said it was impossible to recover from doctors who commit intentional torts. I just said that doctors are human and are not some special species of the human race. I gave real examples of some very human wrongdoing that doctors have committed over the years.

Good grief! Now you are an expert on doctors, lawyers and tort reform as well as urban planning. Is there anything you don't claim to be an expert on?

This thread is about Walmart but that doesn't seem to stop you from weighing in on the historic district issue here. You distort and downright lie about what the opponents of the ordinance had to say about it, like the political sign issue. No one ever said politcal signs would be regulated. The Coalition of Crazy made that claim up! In fact, no one ever said that paint color or HVAC or light fixtures or fences would be regulated. The only thing the opponents pointed out was that the first draft of the ordinance had language that was so vague and all encompassing that it would allow the city to regulate any exterior feature of a property (again, no mention of signs). Clearly, you can not discern nuance. Or you can and needed a red herring to deflect from the fact that your merry band of hysterical preservationists had an unpopular position. You had to lie about density and the fact that the ordinance didn't prevent density or things like townhouses and condos, or even a high rise. No high rise residential structure could have been built in the existing historic districts as there was no tract large enough. But it didn't prevent you from using these sorts of ridiculous claims to frighten your neighbors.

The truth is that there is no space large enough for grocery stores and other retail development (let alone a highrise) within the boundaries of the historic districts and most of it is protected by prevailing lot size and set back restrictions which are the ONLY thing that prevents density - something the Planning Director and the Mayor have both said publicly. The HPO does not prevent density. And the HPO will not prevent retail development in the areas that surround historic districts that have tracts large enough for retail development. You could never have created historic districts in those areas. They are largely commercial/industrial and have nothing to do with historic preservation. There is retail development on the outskirts of every residential area - its called urban planning. Retail close to where people live.

I hate Walmart, and hate the idea that it is coming near our neighborhood. I never shop at Walmart and never will. But the reality is retail development surrounding the Heights is going to happen. The land is very valuable and quite frankly, we need the retail resources. I would love to have seen HEB go in but after years of negotiating with the developer, they opted out. Once that happened, the developer sought other potential anchors for the development because they had to have a large retail anchor to be successful. The one that came to the table was Walmart. Unfortunate, but that is business. That is urban development and planning. There will be more of it. Look around the fringe of our community. Where there are large tracts of land owned by a single entity, you will have redevelopment with both retail/commercial and dense residential developments.

The world has changed since the 1950's. No matter how hard you wish for it, it won't go back. You continually play fast and loose with the facts and post all over this forum as if you are an expert on every subject. Again, it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You don't have to persist on convincing us you don't understand this concept.

[Heights Homeowner]

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.

As we have seen on the HPO thread, s3mh claims he knows everything about everything. He doesn't understand sarcasm or irony or any other subtlety. While he claims to know everything about the law, he didn't understand the simple truth in law that what is on the paper, in black and white, is the only thing that matters. If he understood law, he would know that the "plain language" is always what it means. If it says words like "any" or "all" or "every", then that it what it means. Any means ANY. When people pointed out the broad language, his tiny clan just cried...but they said....waaaaaaaa! No, no one said anything like what they claimed because they wanted the city to have ultimate authority over everything. Thankfully, due to the property owners complaining, we got some exclusions although the language of the ordinance is still very broad and of course, they can come back and remove those exclusions anytime they want to, which is another thing they didn't tell people. They said publicly 3 years ago, when the Heights districts were created, that they would take baby steps. They didn't have to take baby steps when Parker got elected. But they will come back and make the ordinance more restrictive. Guaranteed.

The HPO folks have taken up with the anti Walmart folks thinking their kinship is a longing for days gone by. They could get closer to it if they moved to rural, small town USA. Life is easy. Development and progress is virtually non-existent (exept for Walmart, of course). Instead, they live in the inner city of the 4th largest city in the country and complain bitterly about urban revitalization and redevelopment of any kind. They dominated the HHA for years (but are now on the outs). They had nothing better to do than oppose any reasonable rtail/commercial development that came into the neighborhood for years and years and it drove people out of the homeowners association because it was ruled by this mentality. Not anymore, thankfully! It is not surprising that they co-op'd the Walmart issue too because they are against all development. They want everything frozen in time so they can live in the fantasy of the 1950's.

It is very unfortunate Walmarts new frontier is inner city urban areas but it was bound to happen. The best thing to do is to work with these type of developers to get the kinds of businesses we would like to see in the community instead of fighting development in general. Developers are business people and they want to be successful and make money (I know it isn't popular to say that) but that is reality. If the folks that spend so much time fighting developers actually tried to work with them, they would be much more successful. To prempt Walmart, they could have organized and made an effort to encourage all of the grocery retailers to come to the area. The grocery retailers (Randalls, HEB and Fiests) have all been looking at the Heights for 7 or 8 years, maybe longer. Hundreds of letters/emails to HEB might have made the difference in their decision. But the s3mh type folk's methodology is to have city regulate everything, oppose everything and then scream and cry (and lie) when they don't get their way.

Like I said, I hate Walmart, never shop there and never will. But the truth is that unless an another anchor retailer is willing to go in to that space, Walmart will happen. Parker is for it. Parker wants the tax revenue. Parker, despite the fact that she isn't a fan of Walmart, didn't oppose the 380 because she wanted the money it will bring to the city. She couldn't prevent it but she also doesn't care. Just like the Red Light Camera issue (she can sue over it but if doesn't change the truth) but in the end, she wants the money from Walmart and will work to get it. She is working with Aimbinder's lobbyist on other initiatives. She isn't on the anti-Walmart side. She is on the side of the money.

[s3mh]

Good grief! Now you are an expert on doctors, lawyers and tort reform as well as urban planning. Is there anything you don't claim to be an expert on?

No one ever said politcal signs would be regulated.

I hate Walmart, and hate the idea that it is coming near our neighborhood. I never shop at Walmart and never will. But the reality is retail development surrounding the Heights is going to happen. The land is very valuable and quite frankly, we need the retail resources. I would love to have seen HEB go in but after years of negotiating with the developer, they opted out. Once that happened, the developer sought other potential anchors for the development because they had to have a large retail anchor to be successful. The one that came to the table was Walmart. Unfortunate, but that is business. That is urban development and planning. There will be more of it. Look around the fringe of our community. Where there are large tracts of land owned by a single entity, you will have redevelopment with both retail/commercial and dense residential developments.

The world has changed since the 1950's. No matter how hard you wish for it, it won't go back. You continually play fast and loose with the facts and post all over this forum as if you are an expert on every subject. Again, it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You don't have to persist on convincing us you don't understand this concept.

1. Marksmu said in a post that he thought the ordinance was broad enough that it could give HAHC the power to regulate what political signs you could put in your yard. This was back when anti-preservationists were telling everyone that HAHC would tell them what paint color they could use and regulate the kind and placement of HVAC systems when they were trying to scare everyone into supporting their cause.

2. HEB did not walk away. HEB was ready to close on a deal with the developer, but Walmart stepped in at the last minute and offered to buy the land at a ridiculous price that HEB could not beat. But for Walmart, HEB would be the anchor tenant. They were ready willing and able to open a store, but do not have the corporate largesse of Walmart to be able to operate at a loss just to dillute their competitor's market share (Now who is playing fast and loose with the facts)

3. It is not 1950. But it also isn't 1980. Suburban strip malls and big box stores are designed for the suburbs where there is plenty of land to build wide roads and large parking lots. With the addition of the feeder road, Yale will effectively become a one lane street at I-10 because of the need for dedicated turn lanes. This is not where you put high traffic big box strip centers. This is 2010. Mixed use developments have been proven to generate significantly more tax revenue that single story strip centers, mitigate traffic impacts by not having over the top supercenters that attract consumers from far beyond the neighborhood and lift up neighboring property values, spurring further development in the surrounding neighborhood. Walmart will just bust the streets with traffic, be a wash in terms of tax dollars for at least ten years thanks to the 380 agreement and crush further development in the immediate neighborhood (people are already putting their homes on the market).

I don't have to be an expert on anything to know that someone is wrong when they put out a whopper like attorney's fees and expenses being bifurcated in med mal cases. Anyone who read the newspaper during the tort reform debate would have understood that the main argument against tort reform was that it would make it economically impossible to bring all but the most extraordinary medmal cases due to the expenses and attorney's fees that are taken out of a plaintiff's recovery.

You can attack me and call me names all day, but that won't make me go away. The anti-preservationists tried to turn the historic ordinance thread into their own little discussion group. Same for the pro-walmart folks. Sorry, but this is a public forum. If you do not want to hear opposing viewpoints, go hang out on the anti-preservationist facebook page.

[SilverJK]

1. Marksmu said in a post that he thought the ordinance was broad enough that it could give HAHC the power to regulate what political signs you could put in your yard. This was back when anti-preservationists were telling everyone that HAHC would tell them what paint color they could use and regulate the kind and placement of HVAC systems when they were trying to scare everyone into supporting their cause.

2. HEB did not walk away. HEB was ready to close on a deal with the developer, but Walmart stepped in at the last minute and offered to buy the land at a ridiculous price that HEB could not beat. But for Walmart, HEB would be the anchor tenant. They were ready willing and able to open a store, but do not have the corporate largesse of Walmart to be able to operate at a loss just to dillute their competitor's market share (Now who is playing fast and loose with the facts)

3. It is not 1950. But it also isn't 1980. Suburban strip malls and big box stores are designed for the suburbs where there is plenty of land to build wide roads and large parking lots. With the addition of the feeder road, Yale will effectively become a one lane street at I-10 because of the need for dedicated turn lanes. This is not where you put high traffic big box strip centers. This is 2010. Mixed use developments have been proven to generate significantly more tax revenue that single story strip centers, mitigate traffic impacts by not having over the top supercenters that attract consumers from far beyond the neighborhood and lift up neighboring property values, spurring further development in the surrounding neighborhood. Walmart will just bust the streets with traffic, be a wash in terms of tax dollars for at least ten years thanks to the 380 agreement and crush further development in the immediate neighborhood (people are already putting their homes on the market).

I don't have to be an expert on anything to know that someone is wrong when they put out a whopper like attorney's fees and expenses being bifurcated in med mal cases. Anyone who read the newspaper during the tort reform debate would have understood that the main argument against tort reform was that it would make it economically impossible to bring all but the most extraordinary medmal cases due to the expenses and attorney's fees that are taken out of a plaintiff's recovery.

You can attack me and call me names all day, but that won't make me go away. The anti-preservationists tried to turn the historic ordinance thread into their own little discussion group. Same for the pro-walmart folks. Sorry, but this is a public forum. If you do not want to hear opposing viewpoints, go hang out on the anti-preservationist facebook page.

I'm sick and tired of your rabble. You keep calling the anti-ordinance people anti-preservationist. Most of us are for preservation, and several of us have went to great lengths to preserve buildings/art/antiques/culture. Your labeling of "anti-preservation" is blatantly offensive, and I think you owe us an apology. And you have the audacity to constantly accuse others of Strawman arguments. LOL

Some of the things said (paint color/political signs/hvac) were exaggerations yes, but that was the WHOLE point. You have to be concise/clear with the ordinance. If you leave an area open to interpretation crazy things can happen. Especially when people like you, who claimed after your "victory" that those who opposed it will pay for it.

In truth, you must admit that the Walmart will have very little effect on your daily life. You blab about traffic, getting fat??, and all the terrible things that will happen from walmart (walmart chupacabra will eat your animals) but I know for me personally, I maybe drive by this location once or twice a month, if traffic really is bad on Yale (which i seriously doubt it will be any worse than Target on Sawyer), I'll just take one of the other choices to get back to the Heights. Sawyer should be even faster because Walmart is dilluting their share...

Edited January 25, 2011 by SilverJK

[Marksmu]

I'm sick and tired of your rabble. You keep calling the anti-ordinance people anti-preservationist. Most of us are for preservation, and several of us have went to great lengths to preserve buildings/art/antiques/culture. Your labeling of "anti-preservation" is blatantly offensive, and I think you owe us an apology. And you have the audacity to constantly accuse others of Strawman arguments. LOL

Some of the things said (paint color/political signs/hvac) were exaggerations yes, but that was the WHOLE point. You have to be concise/clear with the ordinance. If you leave an area open to interpretation crazy things can happen. Especially when people like you, who claimed after your "victory" that those who opposed it will pay for it.

In truth, you must admit that the Walmart will have very little effect on your daily life. You blab about traffic, getting fat??, and all the terrible things that will happen from walmart (walmart chupacabra will eat your animals) but I know for me personally, I maybe drive by this location once or twice a month, if traffic really is bad on Yale (which i seriously doubt it will be any worse than Target on Sawyer), I'll just take one of the other choices to get back to the Heights. Sawyer should be even faster because Walmart is dilluting their share...

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.

[samagon]

I don't have to be an expert on anything...

you don't have to be, but it helps to at least do some cursory research. and if you write anything, make sure you don't contradict yourself.

I also love how you continue to point out the one thing that someone said which was not only very obviously an exaggeration, but even after he said, hey, yeah, it was an exaggeration, and you're right, I don't expect they will make you pick up yard signs. YOU STILL KEEP POINTING IT OUT.

Is there nothing else you can cling to, but an exaggeration that someone said was an exaggeration, and that they didn't expect that to really happen?

I mean, if people went through and pointed out your many incorrect writings, not only would you not admit fault, you'd just ignore it and go out and say something else which is invalidated, and is not based on fact.

[Angostura]

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.

Traffic report has been released on stopheightswalmart.org and it bears this out.

Traffic in the area will get much, much worse after the completion of the feeder roads. The existence of the development (provided the mitigation steps are taken) doesn't have much of an impact.

The study doesn't say how much of the increase in Yale and Heights traffic comes from reduction in Studewood and Shepherd/Durham traffic.

[s3mh]

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.

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

[SilverJK]

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

spin those webs!

[Marksmu]

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

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.

[Marksmu]

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

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.

[s3mh]

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.

You do understand that the traffic counts will be a moot point once they start to build?

We are actually on the same page but come out very different ways on this. The traffic study clearly shows the feeder road ruining traffic conditions. You take the tear drop in a salted sea approach and give the developer a free pass to make a bad situation worse (which is not what the design manual requires). My point has always been that the existing traffic infrastructure is insufficient for a Walmart supercenter. The traffic study agrees. Thus, they are spending millions (of our tax dollars) to attempt to mitigate the additional traffic. So, the developer has admitted that the traffic impact of the Walmart development is significant and is spending millions (of our tax dollars) to try to make it work. So, there is no debate whether the Walmart development will worsen traffic on existing infrastructure. The developer's own traffic engineer admits that. The issue is whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient (it is not) and whether tax payers should have to pay for something the developer would normally be required to pay for, and, in this case, has said that he would pay for. If you look at the proposed mitigation, it is all for the development and virtually nothing for the community. All they do for the I-10/Yale intersection is add a little right turn lane. Yet, they are willing to put in a dedicated left turn lane to the development by widening Yale between Koehler and the grade separation. If they can do that with our tax dollars, they can certainly afford to add a dedicated left turn lane at the Yale/I-10 intersection to keep Yale from effectively becoming a one lane road at I-10 if someone tries to make a left hand turn. But, they don't. If you are ok with that, that is fine. I am not and am going to pound on the City until they do something about it. You can thank me later.

[Marksmu]

You do understand that the traffic counts will be a moot point once they start to build?

We are actually on the same page but come out very different ways on this. The traffic study clearly shows the feeder road ruining traffic conditions. You take the tear drop in a salted sea approach and give the developer a free pass to make a bad situation worse (which is not what the design manual requires). My point has always been that the existing traffic infrastructure is insufficient for a Walmart supercenter. The traffic study agrees. Thus, they are spending millions (of our tax dollars) to attempt to mitigate the additional traffic. So, the developer has admitted that the traffic impact of the Walmart development is significant and is spending millions (of our tax dollars) to try to make it work. So, there is no debate whether the Walmart development will worsen traffic on existing infrastructure. The developer's own traffic engineer admits that. The issue is whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient (it is not) and whether tax payers should have to pay for something the developer would normally be required to pay for, and, in this case, has said that he would pay for. If you look at the proposed mitigation, it is all for the development and virtually nothing for the community. All they do for the I-10/Yale intersection is add a little right turn lane. Yet, they are willing to put in a dedicated left turn lane to the development by widening Yale between Koehler and the grade separation. If they can do that with our tax dollars, they can certainly afford to add a dedicated left turn lane at the Yale/I-10 intersection to keep Yale from effectively becoming a one lane road at I-10 if someone tries to make a left hand turn. But, they don't. If you are ok with that, that is fine. I am not and am going to pound on the City until they do something about it. You can thank me later.

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.

[samagon]

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

here's a link to the actual document itself that doesn't have editorial commentary.

feel free to read and come to your own conclusions.

http://stopheightswalmart.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/kh-tiareport.pdf

[Angostura]

The traffic issue is one of the very few levers the anti-Walmart folks have to stop this development. However, I'd have a little more respect for them if they were honest about the fact that they don't really care about the traffic itself, just the fact that what's generating the traffic is a Walmart.

RUDH (and s3mh and others) have stated a preference for higher density West Ave/City Centre style mixed use development for this land. A higher density project would bring MORE retail square footage, MORE total parking spaces, and generate MORE trips daily.

The report estimates the daily trip count for Walmart is 8077 of 17,792 trip total (the 16,630 value is net of internal capture, i.e. people going to multiple destinations in the same development). So even though Walmart is 70% of the square footage, it's responsible for only 45% of the trip generation. Replacing the Walmart's 150k sf with almost anything else would INcrease traffic count, not decrease it, especially if you added residential or office space above it.

[Marksmu]

The traffic issue is one of the very few levers the anti-Walmart folks have to stop this development. However, I'd have a little more respect for them if they were honest about the fact that they don't really care about the traffic itself, just the fact that what's generating the traffic is a Walmart.

RUDH (and s3mh and others) have stated a preference for higher density West Ave/City Centre style mixed use development for this land. A higher density project would bring MORE retail square footage, MORE total parking spaces, and generate MORE trips daily.

The report estimates the daily trip count for Walmart is 8077 of 17,792 trip total (the 16,630 value is net of internal capture, i.e. people going to multiple destinations in the same development). So even though Walmart is 70% of the square footage, it's responsible for only 45% of the trip generation. Replacing the Walmart's 150k sf with almost anything else would INcrease traffic count, not decrease it, especially if you added residential or office space above it.

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

[editor]

1,430 posts in this thread. I'm going to have to check to see if that's a record.

[20thStDad]

4866 in Houston Pavilions. I bet there is one with 10,000 out there.

[RedScare]

The University line thread has over 3,000 as well.

This thread officially jumped the shark when it began a discussion on Med Mal. I don't think even a return to traffic studies can save it.

[samagon]

The University line thread has over 3,000 as well.

This thread officially jumped the shark when it began a discussion on Med Mal. I don't think even a return to traffic studies can save it.

you do realize that if there was no Walmart being built at this location this thread never would have gone off topic, yet another thing we can blame on Walmart!

[Porchman]

4866 in Houston Pavilions. I bet there is one with 10,000 out there.

Ya know, this Walmart would be a lot more exciting if it had some big electronic animation on the side of it,

[RedScare]

As long as it has LED lighting around the top of it, I'll be happy.

[Heights Homeowner]

1. Marksmu said in a post that he thought the ordinance was broad enough that it could give HAHC the power to regulate what political signs you could put in your yard. This was back when anti-preservationists were telling everyone that HAHC would tell them what paint color they could use and regulate the kind and placement of HVAC systems when they were trying to scare everyone into supporting their cause.

The anti-ordinance folks never said that HAHC would regulate paint. That is one of your red herrings. And numerous homeowners had already experienced 3 day delays in permitting HVAC due to the hysterical preservation office. Telling lies about the messenger and distorting the message won't make it so.

2. HEB did not walk away. HEB was ready to close on a deal with the developer, but Walmart stepped in at the last minute and offered to buy the land at a ridiculous price that HEB could not beat. But for Walmart, HEB would be the anchor tenant. They were ready willing and able to open a store, but do not have the corporate largesse of Walmart to be able to operate at a loss just to dillute their competitor's market share (Now who is playing fast and loose with the facts)

You clearly have no idea what happened with HEB, which is typical with your posts. Since I had conversations with the lawyers representing the developer, I think I have a better handle on what happened with HEB than your rumor mill who KNOWS NOTHNG about the negotiations. They had been in talks for a long time and only when they were told they had to make a decision and subsequently turned it down did Aimbinder look for someone else. I get my info from the actual source, not Internet blogs.

3. It is not 1950. But it also isn't 1980. Suburban strip malls and big box stores are designed for the suburbs where there is plenty of land to build wide roads and large parking lots. With the addition of the feeder road, Yale will effectively become a one lane street at I-10 because of the need for dedicated turn lanes. This is not where you put high traffic big box strip centers. This is 2010. Mixed use developments have been proven to generate significantly more tax revenue that single story strip centers, mitigate traffic impacts by not having over the top supercenters that attract consumers from far beyond the neighborhood and lift up neighboring property values, spurring further development in the surrounding neighborhood. Walmart will just bust the streets with traffic, be a wash in terms of tax dollars for at least ten years thanks to the 380 agreement and crush further development in the immediate neighborhood (people are already putting their homes on the market).

The 1950 reference was about your groups desire to live in the 1950’s. And by the way, it is 2011. I realize progress of any time offends you but you can’t stop it or the march of time. And the claims of too much traffic are ALWAYS the cry of those who oppose progress and development. The Planning Commish is used to it. They hear it every other Thursday. So, people are putting their homes on the market because of Walmart? And you know this how? Or is this just another one of your areas of expertise. I have rarely in my life seen someone who posts on a message board every day espousing their vast knowledge of absolutely everything.

I don't have to be an expert on anything to know that someone is wrong when they put out a whopper like attorney's fees and expenses being bifurcated in med mal cases. Anyone who read the newspaper during the tort reform debate would have understood that the main argument against tort reform was that it would make it economically impossible to bring all but the most extraordinary medmal cases due to the expenses and attorney's fees that are taken out of a plaintiff's recovery.

You can attack me and call me names all day, but that won't make me go away. The anti-preservationists tried to turn the historic ordinance thread into their own little discussion group. Same for the pro-walmart folks. Sorry, but this is a public forum. If you do not want to hear opposing viewpoints, go hang out on the anti-preservationist facebook page.

It isn’t that you have an opposing viewpoint that is the problem. You constantly post on the HAIF as if you are an expert on every subject. Real estate, the lending industry, construction, urban planning, the law, medical malpractice, economics, and what ever else is under discussion. You posted threats on another thread and drew attention to yourself as a result. I am simply pointing out to those who read this that you are a phony who is always spouting half truths, conjecture, rumor and gossip and downright lies.

[Heights Homeowner]

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

One of my favorite lawyers always says to me "you can't make a logical arguement with people who are illogical, particularly when it is illogical."