Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[samagon]

No, the obvious answer is that the no. 1 fortune 500 company should have enough cash to make the necessary infrastructure upgrades needed to accomodate their business.

I just read Walmart's business plan, their mission statement, and a few other documents that describe what walmart does.

Didn't see "bridge improvement" anywhere on there.

[samagon]

I've got a perfect solution:

why doesn't Irresponsible Urban Development Houston donate the money to fix the bridge?

[RedScare]

I've got a perfect solution:

why doesn't Irresponsible Urban Development Houston donate the money to fix the bridge?

Just noticed the acronym for your new name for this group is IUD Houston.

Strangely appropriate.

[RedScare]

Drove down Yale to see the protest at 11:15. Nary a soul to be seen. Must have been one of those quicky protests. Judging by the photograph on the Stop the Heights Walmart Facebook page, no more than 50 people likely saw the protest, given that there was no traffic on Yale, either in the photograph, or when I took my live in my hands by traversing the killer bridge.

[s3mh]

If the bridge is substandard, then it is the City's responsibility to upgrade it. Walmart will soon be paying more than their fair share of taxes that can go toward upgrading the bridge if you convince the City to put it in front of other infrastructure projects. They have no further obligation than to pay their taxes. We don't force you to pay to repave your street. Walmart cannot be forced to upgrade a bridge, especially when there is a suitable alternative 200 feet away. But then, we all know that you and RUDH are not interested in the bridge, only in trying to backdoor attack Walmart. It will not work, but as always, it is amusing to watch you contort yourself in an effort to make this Walmart's fault.

Whenever a development goes in, the development must pay for any needed infrastructure upgrades. HEB is paying to redo the street next to their new store in Montrose. The Ashby Highrise people paid over 200k for drainage upgrades (and never built anything). Neither made infrastructure upgrades to be nice. They were required to do so in order to build. Walmart/Ainbinder should have been required to upgrade the bridge, but the City screwed up and missed the issue. Now, the City is just going to wait until the bridge degrades to the point that it will trigger mandatory federal funding.

Walmart's taxes for the first ten years will go towards repaying the 6 mil 380 agreement. Depending on interest, the payments will total 1.5-2 mil a year. Add to that the Frank Liu 380 agreement and the City will continue to have serious budget woes for years to come. This year's budget crunch was not due to a loss of tax revenue, but, instead, the lack expected gains in tax revenue. If Walmart/Ainbinder paid their own way, the City would get the infrastructure improvements and see a rise in tax base. With the 380 agreement, the City won't see any tax benefits until 2023, at the earliest.

[samagon]

Whenever a development goes in, the development must pay for any needed infrastructure upgrades.

Not that I don't believe you, but can you at least cite the reference to the city ordinance (or ordinances) stating as much?

Only thing I found is regarding utility work...

http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level3/COOR_CH47WASE_ARTIVDEUTSYEX.html

I don't see anything regarding fixing streets.

As far as I know, and unless you can show me the ordinance saying otherwise, any agreement made between the city and developer for the developer to take on some of the costs of improvements not outlined in the above ordinance, are special cases.

Otherwise, this is just another case of you making stuff up.

[RedScare]

S3mh, why weren't you at the protest Saturday? Do children dieing in fiery bus crashes from collapsed bridges not mean enough to spare a few minutes of your Saturday? I made a special trip down Yale on Saturday morning...including taking my life in my hands by driving on the bridge...and no one was there. Just one lame sign stuck in the ground.

[s3mh]

Not that I don't believe you, but can you at least cite the reference to the city ordinance (or ordinances) stating as much?

Only thing I found is regarding utility work...

http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level3/COOR_CH47WASE_ARTIVDEUTSYEX.html

I don't see anything regarding fixing streets.

As far as I know, and unless you can show me the ordinance saying otherwise, any agreement made between the city and developer for the developer to take on some of the costs of improvements not outlined in the above ordinance, are special cases.

Otherwise, this is just another case of you making stuff up.

Like a 20k per axel weight limitation for the Yale St bridge? Like I have said before, just because you do not think I am right about something doesn't mean you get to accuse me of always making up stuff. If you can offer affirmative proof that I am wrong, then swing away. Otherwise, cut it out. You have demonstrated that you are no authority on any of this and have no right to hound people because they do not share your viewpoint.

All developments the size of the Ainbinder/Walmart development are subject to the City's design manual (http://documents.publicworks.houstontx.gov/document-center/2010-city-of-houston-infrastructure-design-manual/index.htm). Under the design manual, you have to do have a traffic control plan that is stamped by a licensed engineer and then approved by the City. You have to have a drainage plan engineer, stamp, approved. If your traffic engineer says you need to widen the street to have a left turn lane to mitigate your traffic impact (mitigation is required when an intersection is degraged to unacceptable levels, like going from above a D to an F), you cannot build unless you do what your traffic engineer says you need to do. The City is not required to improve public infrastructure when a development requires it. It is up to the developer to pay unless they get some sort of development agreement with the City to use a 380 agreement, TIRZ or some other agreement to offset the cost. So, it is not a special case, but the reality of the design manual that frequently necessitates improvements to public infrastructure for private developments.

[RedScare]

Since there is an acceptable alternative in using Heights Blvd, the City likely cannot force Ainbinder to rebuild the Yale Bridge. And Walmart is in the clear as well. Remember, they extended Kohler specifically to provide better access to Heights. It's a done deal.

Now, about those dieing children that you ignored on Saturday....

Edited May 16, 2011 by RedScare

[samagon]

Like a 20k per axel weight limitation for the Yale St bridge?

I KNEW you were going to try and rub this in my face, BUT see the difference here is, I had shown the historical data, and when you showed I was wrong, I ADMITTED that it had changed since last I looked.

WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU ADMITTED YOU WERE WRONG!????!!!

never? yeah, you always just ignore things you can't prove, or have been proven to be otherwise.

If you're done being smug now, are you going to offer a reference to the ordinance, or are you going to ignore it, as per normal?

Edited May 16, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

I KNEW you were going to try and rub this in my face, BUT see the difference here is, I had shown the historical data, and when you showed I was wrong, I ADMITTED that it had changed since last I looked.

WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU ADMITTED YOU WERE WRONG!????!!!

never? yeah, you always just ignore things you can't prove, or have been proven to be otherwise.

If you're done being smug now, are you going to offer a reference to the ordinance, or are you going to ignore it, as per normal?

I provided the design manual. If you do not want to take the time to read it, that is fine. It is not light reading. It sets forth the requirements for major real estate developments in Houston. There are numerous requirements that can trigger the need for public infrastructure upgrades. There is no ordinance that specifically says a developer cannot force the City to fire a bunch of police officers to free up funds to make needed infrastructure upgrades. The design manual is mandatory. If you have to make a public infrastructure upgrade to meet the requirements of the design manual, you have to pay for it if you do not want to wait for the upgrade to work its way through the CIF process. I am sorry but I do have first hand knowledge in this process and cannot provide you a link to everything I know. If you want to call me wrong about something, YOU can provide a link to contrary material. Otherwise, move along.

And you did not show any historical data or really admit you were wrong. The rating for the bridge has always been 21k dual axel, 40k gross. Those are distinct load limitations. You still do not understand that even though it is a pretty basic concept.

[s3mh]

Since there is an acceptable alternative in using Heights Blvd, the City likely cannot force Ainbinder to rebuild the Yale Bridge. And Walmart is in the clear as well. Remember, they extended Kohler specifically to provide better access to Heights. It's a done deal.

Now, about those dieing children that you ignored on Saturday....

It is up to the traffic engineer. If the traffic control plan recommended upgrading the bridge, they would have to do it. Rerouting 18 wheeler traffic is a half measure that will just send 18 wheelers into the bike lanes on Heights, while many will ignore the restriction and still end up on Yale. That alternative is only acceptable to Walmart, not the 5 community organizations that wrote the City demanding an upgrade to the bridge before the site is developed.

And it is "dying" not "dieing".

[SilverJK]

It is up to the traffic engineer. If the traffic control plan recommended upgrading the bridge, they would have to do it. Rerouting 18 wheeler traffic is a half measure that will just send 18 wheelers into the bike lanes on Heights, while many will ignore the restriction and still end up on Yale. That alternative is only acceptable to Walmart, not the 5 community organizations that wrote the City demanding an upgrade to the bridge before the site is developed.

And it is "dying" not "dieing".

Trolls love bridges.

[RedScare]

If s3mh doesn't care enough about dead school children to show up at a 20 minute protest on Saturday, I do not care enough to force Walmart to build a bridge....something I cannot force them to do anyway.

Won't anyone do it for the children?

Edited May 16, 2011 by RedScare

[samagon]

I provided the design manual. If you do not want to take the time to read it, that is fine. It is not light reading. It sets forth the requirements for major real estate developments in Houston. There are numerous requirements that can trigger the need for public infrastructure upgrades. There is no ordinance that specifically says a developer cannot force the City to fire a bunch of police officers to free up funds to make needed infrastructure upgrades. The design manual is mandatory. If you have to make a public infrastructure upgrade to meet the requirements of the design manual, you have to pay for it if you do not want to wait for the upgrade to work its way through the CIF process. I am sorry but I do have first hand knowledge in this process and cannot provide you a link to everything I know. If you want to call me wrong about something, YOU can provide a link to contrary material. Otherwise, move along.

And you did not show any historical data or really admit you were wrong. The rating for the bridge has always been 21k dual axel, 40k gross. Those are distinct load limitations. You still do not understand that even though it is a pretty basic concept.

I did a search through the long document last night, where did it mention bridges? I missed it.

Specifically, if there is a bridge that is old, and possibly not capable of handling load/traffic, even if there is an acceptable solution, that the developer must cover the cost to repair/replace the bridge.

I really didn't see it, and again, I would never doubt you, I just like to read it with my own eyes!

all of this is academic and stupid anyhow, the sign is there prior to the bridge giving the weight, the truck driver will know his load weight and will not go over the bridge, if he somehow does, that is not walmarts fault, that is not the cities fault, that is the drivers fault, and guess who gets the ticket, and guess who doesn't get to drive commercial vehicles anymore, not walmart, or the city, the driver, that's assuming he survives.

Edited May 17, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

all of this is academic and stupid anyhow, the sign is there prior to the bridge giving the weight, the truck driver will know his load weight and will not go over the bridge, if he somehow does, that is not walmarts fault, that is not the cities fault, that is the drivers fault, and guess who gets the ticket, and guess who doesn't get to drive commercial vehicles anymore, not walmart, or the city, the driver, that's assuming he survives.

Google respondeat superior.

[RedScare]

Go back to law school. Respondeat superior does not apply to criminal law violations.

Why weren't you at the protest?

[samagon]

Go back to law school. Respondeat superior does not apply to criminal law violations.

Why weren't you at the protest?

The term 'go back' would first require someone going in the first place.

[RedScare]

The term 'go back' would first require someone going in the first place.

True, a real lawyer would have thought the situation through before responding. If Walmart believes that they may be held liable for a bridge collapse under the theory of respondeat superior, they will take extra precautions to ensure that their drivers do not use the load restricted bridge. This makes it even less likely that the trucks will use the bridge.

If you are arguing that a bridge should be replaced, the last thing that you should do is draw attention to the fact that a retailer with big pockets might be exposed to liability, and would, therefore, take measures to limit that liability. s3mh has simply pointed out ANOTHER reason that Walmart will not send their trucks across the bridge. But, then, this has been the case all along, from claiming Walmart causes 10,000 vehicles to use the road, then upping it to 22,000 vehicles when the RUDH traffic count showed Yale only gets 10,000 vehicles per day, far below its 26,000 vpd capacity. And, the claim that Walmart can be required to rebuild a bridge, when there are no less than SIX alternatives routes onto the property that do not use the bridge, is ludicrous.

[barracuda]

This discussion is apparently not for the timid. Anyway, ABC 13 has picked up the story. The City of Houston response: "The Yale Street Bridge will require upgrade or replacement in the foreseeable future and PWE continues to explore all options for funding such work.".

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=8131246

[s3mh]

Go back to law school. Respondeat superior does not apply to criminal law violations.

Why weren't you at the protest?

Google negligence per se.

[samagon]

Personally, I think a far better demonstration would be for the angry citizens to go park 6 h2 suvs on the bridge (they weigh over 8600 lbs each) and watch the bridge crumble.

This would far more effectively keep Walmart from using it, and save countless children at the same time. It would also allow the donated Hummers to be totalled by insurance, allowing their owners to buy prii.

[samagon]

Google negligence per se.

Google that has nothing to do with this discussion.

[s3mh]

True, a real lawyer would have thought the situation through before responding. If Walmart believes that they may be held liable for a bridge collapse under the theory of respondeat superior, they will take extra precautions to ensure that their drivers do not use the load restricted bridge. This makes it even less likely that the trucks will use the bridge.

If you are arguing that a bridge should be replaced, the last thing that you should do is draw attention to the fact that a retailer with big pockets might be exposed to liability, and would, therefore, take measures to limit that liability. s3mh has simply pointed out ANOTHER reason that Walmart will not send their trucks across the bridge. But, then, this has been the case all along, from claiming Walmart causes 10,000 vehicles to use the road, then upping it to 22,000 vehicles when the RUDH traffic count showed Yale only gets 10,000 vehicles per day, far below its 26,000 vpd capacity. And, the claim that Walmart can be required to rebuild a bridge, when there are no less than SIX alternatives routes onto the property that do not use the bridge, is ludicrous.

The developer's traffic study shows @8k for Walmart, 16k total for the entire development (not counting Orr's neighboring development between Yale and Heights, just south of Ainbinders. Add to that the expected increase in traffic from the new feeders and the developer's own traffic study shows the intersections of Yale and the new I-10 feeders degraded to F level of service. If the traffic engineer believed that the increased traffic flow would require an upgrade to the bridge, the City would have required the developer to upgrade the bridge.

What is really interesting is that the City gave the developer money to resurface the bridge and spruce up the lights and railings in the 380 agreement. The City also gave the developer money to put in a jogging path on the Heights esplanade and money to improve a West Side park. Why not scrap the jogging path (who would want to have to run with all the 18 wheelers barreling through) and the cosmetic enhancements to the bridge and put as much money as possible into improving the Yale St. bridge and get the developer to kick in something for the 6 mil the taxpayers have spotted them?

[s3mh]

Google that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Fine. The claim that "respondeat superior" (liability of the master for the acts of the servant in the course and scope of the master's business) is not defeated by the fact that an employee's conduct was a criminal violation (like exceeding a bridge's load limitation. In fact, under negligence per se, the finder of fact can presume negligence based on the violation of the statute that caused harm that the statute was supposed to protect (like exceeding a bridge's load limitation). Thus, the idea that Walmart avoids liability if one of its drivers takes an 18 wheeler down the Yale St. bridge is completely wrong. If you want a reference to an ordinance or statute, you won't get one. It is common law. Thus, you will have to follow the instructions of the previous posts if you want verification.

[Ross]

WalMart can have a good defense if they demonstrate that drivers are subject to a training program, and that there are policies in place that require the drivers to follow specific routes when delivering goods to stores. This is common practice with larger companies - every turn, every street, is mapped out for drivers, and the GPS in the truck that transmits the route taken back to HQ keeps them honest. If WalMart tells drivers to keep the trucks off the Yale Street bridge, you can be fairly sure that the drivers will obey.

[Ross]

I provided the design manual. If you do not want to take the time to read it, that is fine. It is not light reading. It sets forth the requirements for major real estate developments in Houston. There are numerous requirements that can trigger the need for public infrastructure upgrades. There is no ordinance that specifically says a developer cannot force the City to fire a bunch of police officers to free up funds to make needed infrastructure upgrades. The design manual is mandatory. If you have to make a public infrastructure upgrade to meet the requirements of the design manual, you have to pay for it if you do not want to wait for the upgrade to work its way through the CIF process. I am sorry but I do have first hand knowledge in this process and cannot provide you a link to everything I know. If you want to call me wrong about something, YOU can provide a link to contrary material. Otherwise, move along.

And you did not show any historical data or really admit you were wrong. The rating for the bridge has always been 21k dual axel, 40k gross. Those are distinct load limitations. You still do not understand that even though it is a pretty basic concept.

Provide the ordinance that mandates the use of the design manual.

[RedScare]

Why not scrap the jogging path (who would want to have to run with all the 18 wheelers barreling through)...

By your own statements, it is 7 to 9 trucks, most of which will arrive at night, when restocking is done. At worst, you are talking one truck every 3 hours, probably one every 5 or 6 hours during prime jogging hours. Your attempts at hysteria are getting comical, though none tops the screaming kids on the school bus in the collapsed rubble of a bridge. (I wonder why that nightmarish scenario did not compel you to give 20 minutes of your time to protest on Saturday?)

[samagon]

I think you're assuming Walmart won't have a route written out that expressly prohibits their drivers from taking that route.

Anyway, so far as I know we don't live in minority report yet, so until something happens no one is responsible for the screaming kids on the school bus in the collapsed rubble of a bridge.

Edited May 17, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

Provide the ordinance that mandates the use of the design manual.

Go to the City and tell them you want to build a Walmart in the City limits, but will not follow the design manual. Let me know when you get your permits.

Or, better yet, provide the ordinance that says the design manual is not mandatory.