Jump to content

Wal-Mart To Invade The Heights


HeyHatch

Walmart at Yale & I-10: For or Against  

160 members have voted

  1. 1. Q1: Regarding the proposed WalMart at Yale and I-10:

    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      41
    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      54
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      30
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      26
    • Undecided
      9
  2. 2. Q2: If/when this proposed WalMart is built at Yale & I-10

    • I am FOR this WalMart and will shop at this WalMart
      45
    • I am FOR this WalMart but will not shop at this WalMart
      23
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart but will shop at this WalMart
      7
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart and will not shop at this WalMart
      72
    • Undecided
      13
  3. 3. Q3: WalMart in general

    • I am Pro-Walmart
      16
    • I am Anti-Walmart
      63
    • I don't care either way
      72
    • Undecided
      9

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

The idea that people have to have a certain number of years as a resident of the Heights in order to know what is right for the neighborhood is complete garbage. It is just a way of dodging the real issues.

The idea that a small group of people who mostly just moved to the neighborhood try to tell everyone else how the neighborhood should be sounds pretty significant to me (not garbage). The people who move in to places like the soon to be built 84 condos will have opinions but I bet you will try to use the "you just moved here" approach with them, or you'll probably say something like "WE" know whats best, and the condos aren't part of the neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that people have to have a certain number of years as a resident of the Heights in order to know what is right for the neighborhood is complete garbage.

The idea that you think you can move into this neighborhood and then push your stupid ideas on others while acting like you founded the Heights is what is complete garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These same "defenders" of Heights quality of life applauded the Target development with more strip center footage, and far worse traffic patterns. The garbage here are the do-gooders with a warped sense of quality of life.

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is fighting the Walmart anymore. It has been built and will open in a few weeks. What people are doing now is making sure that the City keep its word that they will "hold the developer's feet to the fire" on all the negative impacts that the development will bring to the area (crime, traffic, flooding, etc.). The Yale St. bridge must be fixed. The truck route on Heights/Koehler does not work and plenty of truckers will ignore the restrictions and take the bridge anyway. There are a whole boat load of other road improvement projects in the West End neighborhood that are needed once the Walmart starts sending cut through traffic down 18' wide streets with on street parking. There may also be other traffic mitigation measures needed considering just how bad the new feeders have made N/S traffic.

Presuming that the developer abides by the improvements specified in the 380 Agreement, they will be reimbursed by the City. The City knew what was being proposed by the developer and agreed to it, and even if the City was unaware of the condition of its own bridge at the time, that is their problem...not the developer's. Both parties to the deal should have done due diligence. You seem to have a beef with the City. That's fantastic. I'm not pleased with the way that they've administered 380 Agreements either, and this instance was one of the better-written ones if you can believe it.

Send them a message by voting Republican in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ainbinder 380 was NOT one of the "better written" ones. Borrowing money at unknown and uncapped interest? Ridiculous. Nothing in the 380 is required, except for the Walmat to open. If the developer doesn't do an item, they simply don't get paid for that item. Case in point - thicker trees. There is no penalty on the developer for not planting thicker trees on Yale. They already maxed out the 380 (which the people got capped) so they simply don't care.

And DUH the issue is with the City for the 380. DUH DUH DUH.

DUH the CITY should have done due diligence with the bridge. DUH DUH DUH.

The City doesn't ADMINISTER 380's, they just pass them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

Sure doesn't sound like a lot of opposition in this thread...

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/474-more-target-info/

But, what would you know. You didn't live here then. Once again, you simply make up what you want, and expect us to believe it. Once again, we know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bull. There was a lot of concern about the Target. The developer met with concerned residents and made lots of promises to appease the neighborhood. Many of those same residents are now the same people fighting for the issues surrounding the Walmart because they learned that you cannot just sit back and trust developers to look out for the interests of the community. The real people with the warped sense of quality of life are those who think that it is a good thing to drop a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs in the middle of an urban community that had a half decent chance to kick the shortsighted car-centric model of development that has been imposed on the community.

There used to be a small collection of perhaps a half-dozen houses mixed in with mostly commercial properties. The developer of the Target dealt with the discontented neighborhood by literally blockbusting it into oblivion. There was even one holdout that absolutely refused to sell out, and so the developer surrounded and beseiged that house by the pavement for the Target store's parking lot. (You can see it in the April 2006 imagery on Google Earth. It's almost comical.) Eventually even the holdout gave up and sold out. So there is no neighborhood to be adversely impacted. I vaguely recall that Woodland Heights was concerned about traffic going up Watson, but obviously that concern was unwarranted.

By comparison, Ainbinder and Wal-Mart have been good corporate citizens. They worked alongside City officials to transform overgrown brownfield sites into a viable shopping center alongside dense new housing with improved civic infrastructure whereas no other proposal could have been brought to fruition within any forseeable time horizon. And now, in only a few weeks time, I will be showing my appreciation for their presence in my urban community by shopping there regularly. Unless of course, I am "no one" persuant to your statement. Am I "no one" to you? Am I less than human, perhaps even verging on the non-sentient on account of my desire to purchase and consume pre-cooked sliced chorizo in deli meat form from the 'Not-Quite-Heights Wal-Mart'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember everyone being rejoiced when that target opened... weird. I didn't see a single ashby esque sign anywhere.

Because there were none. As evidenced by the thread that I linked, virtually everyone in the Heights welcomed the Target. Non-resident s3mh was not here to complain. Not that it matters, because even he would have applauded Minneapolis based big box Target. It is only hillbilly Arkansas based Walmart that offends him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ainbinder 380 was NOT one of the "better written" ones. Borrowing money at unknown and uncapped interest? Ridiculous. Nothing in the 380 is required, except for the Walmat to open. If the developer doesn't do an item, they simply don't get paid for that item. Case in point - thicker trees. There is no penalty on the developer for not planting thicker trees on Yale. They already maxed out the 380 (which the people got capped) so they simply don't care.

I am not disputing that this was poorly written, only that many of the other 380 Agreements are worse.

The City doesn't ADMINISTER 380's, they just pass them.

If all that a government ever did was to make paper agreements, then those agreements would be worthless. The threat or promise that those agreements shall be kept and enforced are what makes them valuable and worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presuming that the developer abides by the improvements specified in the 380 Agreement, they will be reimbursed by the City. The City knew what was being proposed by the developer and agreed to it, and even if the City was unaware of the condition of its own bridge at the time, that is their problem...not the developer's. Both parties to the deal should have done due diligence. You seem to have a beef with the City. That's fantastic. I'm not pleased with the way that they've administered 380 Agreements either, and this instance was one of the better-written ones if you can believe it.

Send them a message by voting Republican in 2012.

City elections are not partisan, but the conservatives on council did a crappy job on the Walmart 380 agreement. And, the conservatives on city counsel (Pennington, Sullivan, Costello, and Clutterbuck) voted for it. Only the liberal democrats voted against it (Gonzalez, Jones, Adams, and Rodriguez-to the best of my recollection). To his credit, Sullivan has turned against the deals on his way out of the door to run for Tax Assessor. Of course, Sullivan's conversion came long after RUDH and others raised cain about the 380 agreements. And I have not heard anything from the Harris County Republicans about reforming the 380 process.

The developer did not have to fix the bridge to get permits, but it should have. The traffic impact analysis should have considered truck routes. But the City has let that process become a welfare project for traffic engineers.

It was a bad move on both the part of the City and the developer to completely miss the issue. The developer is now going to have important access denied to the development in part and in whole for years. Tenants are going to lose business as a result. But the big losers are the folks that live north of the development. We went through lots of closures when they did the I-10 feeder. The bridge should have been reconstructed at that time. The City did there best to ignore the issue and the developer did nothing to move the process along. Now, the community will have to deal with lots of closures and restrictions until 2016, when the bridge is finally fixed.

This 380 Agreement was not one of the better written ones. The City has virtually conceded this by radically updating the form they have been using to one that is more in line with other municipalities. The list of improvements on the 380 agreement could be and were changed only by agreement between the Mayor's office and the developer. Just imagine any other city contract where the scope of work could be completely changed without going back to council. There were no claw back provisions if the developer failed to meet its obligations after repayment began (standard in tax abatement/reimbursement agreements). And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The developer did not have to fix the bridge to get permits, but it should have. The traffic impact analysis should have considered truck routes. But the City has let that process become a welfare project for traffic engineers.

It was a bad move on both the part of the City and the developer to completely miss the issue. The developer is now going to have important access denied to the development in part and in whole for years. Tenants are going to lose business as a result. But the big losers are the folks that live north of the development. We went through lots of closures when they did the I-10 feeder. The bridge should have been reconstructed at that time. The City did there best to ignore the issue and the developer did nothing to move the process along. Now, the community will have to deal with lots of closures and restrictions until 2016, when the bridge is finally fixed.

Wouldn't a welfare project for traffic engineers entail lots of critical feedback so as to require revision after revision? If so, then that would cause the traffic engineering firms to bid out new projects at a higher fee and to have to hire more traffic engineers.

And besides, it isn't as though the development is located on an island with only one shoddy bridge across to it. There are lots of alternative routes. When I shop there, I'm going to drive across the bridge of despair in my deceptively-heavy passenger car. And I shall not care. When the bridge is tore up, I'll drive on down to Heights and turn right at the new intersection at Kohler. If a one-block detour ruins your day, then perhaps yours is such a charmed life that I should envy you; I shall not allow such a trifling nuisance to ruin my day however.

This 380 Agreement was not one of the better written ones. The City has virtually conceded this by radically updating the form they have been using to one that is more in line with other municipalities. The list of improvements on the 380 agreement could be and were changed only by agreement between the Mayor's office and the developer. Just imagine any other city contract where the scope of work could be completely changed without going back to council. There were no claw back provisions if the developer failed to meet its obligations after repayment began (standard in tax abatement/reimbursement agreements). And so on.

Yeah, it's wasn't well written. Okay, so go and read the one for the Gulfgate HEB. At least the scope of work in the case of Ainbinder was such that it would improve infrastructure that Ainbinder was not otherwise required to improve on their own. With Gulfgate...jeez, I'm not going to make a direct accusation, but I sense that it could've bordered on the criminal. The public got nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there were none. As evidenced by the thread that I linked, virtually everyone in the Heights welcomed the Target. Non-resident s3mh was not here to complain. Not that it matters, because even he would have applauded Minneapolis based big box Target. It is only hillbilly Arkansas based Walmart that offends him.

I don't think that the "hillbilly Arkansas" is what galls the anti Walmart crowd. Walmart is the villain because they were targeted by unions and Walmart won that battle. Ever since then the progressive left has done every in their power to vilify a company that is one of the greatest American success stories of all time never mind our time. Google "Ben Franklin + Sam Walton" if you don't know the connection you might be surprised.

Htx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that protesters who normally want more government spending fool no one. Your complaints are that you want bigger trees...which would make the 380 expense larger...and replacement of a bridge...which costs millions, and would never be the responsibility of a developer to replace. Your sudden conversion to fiscal conservatism has gaping holes in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 380 expense was capped due to protests from the community - they've reached the cap I would guess. However, it did call for bigger trees on Yale which they did not do. It was one of the things that Parker went on about. It's not wrong to point out we did not end up with bigger trees as a result of the 380. We got exactly the same trees we would have gotten without the 380.

I don't think the developer should pay to replace the bridge. The bridge is over 80 years old. Bridges are built to last for 50. It's time for it to be replaced. It should not come as a surprise to the City that infrastructure doesn't last forever.

I do think it's odd that everyone that supports the 380 sees no problem at all with a bridge on a 4 lane major road in Houston having a 6000 lb load limit. I guess if the government tells you it's good, you believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL the 380's are horrible. The HEB one is an undisguised giveaway.

Well, we agree on that much at least. Some actually are worse than others.

Just because the disguise of the Ainbinder 380 fools you, does not mean it is not a giveaway.

Just because you think Walmart can build without connecting to sewer doesn't make it true.

Red already dissected this issue. And even if you have a point or a partial point, it only comprises a relatively small portion of the total project cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 380 expense was capped due to protests from the community - they've reached the cap I would guess. However, it did call for bigger trees on Yale which they did not do. It was one of the things that Parker went on about. It's not wrong to point out we did not end up with bigger trees as a result of the 380. We got exactly the same trees we would have gotten without the 380.

I don't think the developer should pay to replace the bridge. The bridge is over 80 years old. Bridges are built to last for 50. It's time for it to be replaced. It should not come as a surprise to the City that infrastructure doesn't last forever.

I do think it's odd that everyone that supports the 380 sees no problem at all with a bridge on a 4 lane major road in Houston having a 6000 lb load limit. I guess if the government tells you it's good, you believe it.

I find it more odd that you try to link an old bridge to a 380 and to Ainbinder and ultimately to Walmart. The bridge is old. Fine. Replace it. But, it has nothing to do with Walmart or 380s. Even the City has agreed it needs replacement. You are complaining that the City did its job.

You are simply complaining for the sake of complaining. And I am simply pointing out the absurdity of your complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a Walmart supercenter that no one wants and no one needs

This is your fundamental problem s3mh, you like to assume that what you think is what everyone thinks or should think. If you look at the poll at the top of this thread, I think you'll see that there are people that want this Walmart. And I am one of them.

THAT ----> Your Pipe ----> Smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, my names no one and I'm a walmart shopper.

Almost everybody I know in the neighborhood will be shopping there and has no overt opinion about Wal-Mart as a company except that it is a Buyer Beware retailer. Luckily they take returns on most items, and the cost benefit plus convenience is what will drive sales to the majority of shoppers in our neighborhood. Every now and again a Nouveau riche will show up at a social gathering with overt negativity, but I find it rare. The real-world number of those with real-life reasons to shop there and who appreciate a convenient location overwhelm the number of elitists who overtly hate the company.

However the real objects of the elitists' hatred are the 46 million Americans (14.8%) on food stamps and others suffering from the ongoing recession/depression. Walmart didn't make this mess, they are just satisfying a real-life need of modern America. Looking for dogs to kick? Start out with the political establishment (both sides) and their financiers. But lay your boots on a hard working American trying to raise a family, and you will have to face the wrath of the common majority who have worked hard enough and are lucky enough to live in this neighborhood. We laugh in your faces because your sham arguments are duplicitous and transparent, but thanks for the entertainment.

William Simon, Wal-Mart CEO, said in September 2010 "on the last day of the month, it’s real interesting to watch. About 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items … and mill about the store until midnight. Our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher. If you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However the real objects of the elitists' hatred are the 46 million Americans (14.8%) on food stamps and others suffering from the ongoing recession/depression.

This makes no sense, considering the demographics of where the store is and how many food options there are with in 5 miles. If this were north east of downtown or any of the other food deserts, I would agree with you.

Low income housing was literally replaced with a starbucks.

A poor person is much more disadvataged by the reducion in cheap central houston housing with access to transport than saving 10 cents on milk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Simon, Wal-Mart CEO, said in September 2010 "on the last day of the month, it’s real interesting to watch. About 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items … and mill about the store until midnight. Our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher. If you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it.”

Was that Walmart CEO hired for his excellent fearmongering skills? It totally worked. The thought of all those babies eating cat food toward the end of the month is alarming, especially when it would be so easy for their non-breastfeeding mothers to sign up for WIC:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

Wikipedia: Currently, WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.

Bit if not enough people are finding it, perhaps Wal-mart with its greater reach should administer the program - as it is probably receiving a good percentage of those WIC and SNAP dollars anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, this William Simon guy sounds like a real creep. Standing around watching hungry babies wait another hour for some formula that they have "been waiting for" so he can enjoy "substantially and significantly higher" sales. And he thinks it's "interesting".

Really disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia: Currently, WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.

Bit if not enough people are finding it, perhaps Wal-mart with its greater reach should administer the program - as it is probably receiving a good percentage of those WIC and SNAP dollars anyway.

That's the point. Those peolple aren't paying cash! Once the WIC/SNAP runs dry, it's wait until first of the month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that the west end service center (new Koehler extension and heights) provides a lot of these services in one place for free.

While there may be some overlap (using the service center day dare while going to work in the new development), I still struggle to see the new development as some great affront to the elitist contempt of the poor. Considering they have been coming to Heights\Yale St for food and services for years the only change is that less of them live there too.

http://www.houstontx.gov/health/MSC/westendmsc.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, this William Simon guy sounds like a real creep. Standing around watching hungry babies wait another hour for some formula that they have "been waiting for" so he can enjoy "substantially and significantly higher" sales. And he thinks it's "interesting".

Really disgusting.

I must refer you to post #2430 . "Excellent!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low income housing was literally replaced with a starbucks.

A poor person is much more disadvataged by the reducion in cheap central houston housing with access to transport than saving 10 cents on milk.

So now they have replaced the ratty places they could live with new places they can work at. The access to transport is still there. Not sure how that is a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes no sense, considering the demographics of where the store is and how many food options there are with in 5 miles. If this were north east of downtown or any of the other food deserts, I would agree with you.

Low income housing was literally replaced with a starbucks.

A poor person is much more disadvataged by the reducion in cheap central houston housing with access to transport than saving 10 cents on milk.

I agree and it was my mistake to emphasize the poorest citizens rather than those just trying to make ends meet in this economy. The former middle class is the key demographic and why investors flock to WalMart during recession, shares hit an all time high July 27 this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, this William Simon guy sounds like a real creep. Standing around watching hungry babies wait another hour for some formula that they have "been waiting for" so he can enjoy "substantially and significantly higher" sales. And he thinks it's "interesting".

But however Machiavellian it may be, you have to appreciate his unusual gift of insight - to have noticed that people tend to shop on payday (!), and to recognize that this is a completely new phenomenon, and to posit that Walmart is thus all that stands between these folks and the abyss. One may as well profit from alleviating misery as anything else, and get credit for it.

And the more women who pick up formula at Walmart the better, because they forgo the natural birth control associated with breastfeeding: more hungry mouths, more government transfers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TGM - it's not an "argument" - it's a fact. The Yale Street Bridge is in the Ainbinder 380 and so is the Walmart.

Are you suggesting that the City of Houston should have put reconstruction of a bridge that will be paid by the State of Texas into a 380 agreement that must be repaid by the City?

This is exactly my point. Your attempts at fiscal conservatism fail miserably because you are so unfamiliar with the concept of fiscal conservatism. You also have a nasty tendency to complain before thinking about what you are complaining about, causing you to contradict what you had said previously. This is a symptom of ideologic thinking. Your ideology...in this case, that you hate Walmart...overwhelms logic, and you spout unsupportable theories and statements.

It is almost too easy to pick apart your arguments, though I'll say that you are not as bad as your alter ego s3mh, who simply makes things up as he goes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the most rigid fiscal conservatives believe that government has a legitimate purpose to invest in infrastructure like bridges and roads. If the bridge needs to be replaced now and Texas seems to be dragging their feet, maybe COH should pay for it. I see no reason to make it part of the 380, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-mart also ships increased numbers of strawberry pop-tarts to Gulf Coast stores that are within a named storm's "cone of uncertainty" during hurricane season. Their research indicated that there was big demand for non-perishables, and even more specific, this flavor variety. Wal-Mart does some incredible things with their business intelligence data, which is why they are extremely successful. From the products they offer to when a truck is allowed to dock, they have it down to a science. My guess is that they have already calculated their B & C options after the bridge weight changes.

Meanwhile back in mom & pop land, Pa kettle is still selling salt-water taffy for $.50 each when his true cost is $.65 each. *Pa scratches head, still can't figure out why they are not breaking even*

But somehow the haters see Wal-mart as the knuckle-dragging hicks and mom & pops as the noble geniuses that were forced out of business.

Edited by TGM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile back in mom & pop land, Pa kettle is still selling salt-water taffy for $.50 each when his true cost is $.65 each. *Pa scratches head, still can't figure out why they are not breaking even*

Thank you for not posting a video. I used to love Ma and Pa Kettle movies, but I'm pretty sure it's one of those things where I would not now understand why I found them so funny. At least the Little Rascals hold up. I think. The Apple Dumpling Gang does not, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The haters cannot appreciate anything positive about the company and they are completely blind to the majority opinion. This phenomenom I find to be the most interesting thing in this thread. What would cause reasonable, well-meaning folks to completely miss the boat on this Wal-Mart? And why does the misdirected hatred continue through phony proxies like the bridge? Is it elitism as I put forth earlier? Is it a defense against one's own shortcomings such as "I would like to shop there but doing so would endanger my carefully constructed image."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it elitism as I put forth earlier? Is it a defense against one's own shortcomings such as "I would like to shop there but doing so would endanger my carefully constructed image."?

Most of the Wal-Mart haters envision themselves as the folks in the NY Times Weekender ads.

The rest of the world views them this way:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The haters cannot appreciate anything positive about the company and they are completely blind to the majority opinion. This phenomenom I find to be the most interesting thing in this thread. What would cause reasonable, well-meaning folks to completely miss the boat on this Wal-Mart? And why does the misdirected hatred continue through phony proxies like the bridge? Is it elitism as I put forth earlier? Is it a defense against one's own shortcomings such as "I would like to shop there but doing so would endanger my carefully constructed image."?

Oh, I can answer that! It's elitism, yes, I've acceded to that elsewhere; and also this: "I wouldn't particularly like to shop there, and doing so will cost more than shopping at HEB."

{It's our greedy, sharp, smallminded recall for prices, for tiny little sums, that makes women so successful on "The Price is Right."}

But it's a serious charge -- though made with so little provocation nowadays, and so frequently -- that of being a hater. I would like to learn the trick -- comes natural to so many, if they are to be believed, if it is not "part of their carefully constructed image" -- of loving an amorphous group of people unknown to me, and the corporation (yes, "people too," I know) that is said to serve them so well. Your damnable bridge has brought to mind the story that famously begins--

On Friday noon, July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke and precipitated five travelers into the gulf below...

and closes:

But soon we shall die and all memory of those five will have left the earth, and we ourselves shall be loved for a while and forgotten. But the love will have been enough; all those impulses of love return to the love that made them. Even memory is not necessary for love. There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.

Perhaps if I pretend to subscribe to that, I'll start to feel the love, for you, for the babies, for Bill Simon, for the weekenders, for seven billion souls. Why, I think my heart just 'grew three sizes.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

How is stating a verifiable fact an unsupportable theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

How is stating a verifiable fact an unsupportable theory?

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I don't know why the developer and Walmart wanted cosmetic repairs on an 80+ year old bridge. Their logic also escapes me. I don't spend my time making up motives for others that I couldn't possibly know. However, I do know why they didn't resurface the bridge. The bridge can't handle the milling equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Wal-Mart To Invade The Heights
  • The topic was unlocked

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...