Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[RedScare]

Two more words: Environmental Standing.

Edited October 21, 2011 by RedScare

[VicMan]

Two more words: Environmental Standing.

So how would these guys claim environmental standing?

[JJxvi]

I will never understand how the neighborhood I lived in over 50 years ago is now so important to be called historical. Looking at most of the past business establishments that still have structures standing things don't seem to have been embellished equally when it was decided that it should all be historical. The Blvd was then and should now be the only zone that is historical, other than the Blvd there wasn't anything out there in the early 1900's. I once remember touring the inside of the large two story a couple blocks down from Hamilton Jr High, that home was truly historical and this was on or around 62 that we toured the house with other friends and family. I love old photos in the early 1900's showing people's yards with nice wrought iron fences and cows in the front yard, if they could look down I'm sure they are laughing at all the bickering. Progress is like a steam roller and everything should be considered temporary, our lives are much shorter than Progress. Priorities are not as important as they once were, we all have too much time to dislike everything around us.

Agreed. Heres a post I made on pretty much this same topic in one of the historic distric threads...

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. My family's business is two houses down and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

[RedScare]

That's what is so hypocritical about the RUDH group. The leader of the group occupies a townhome in the middle of a neighborhood decimated by homes identical to his, yet now wants to claim that a large retail store proposed to be built on a former industrial site will somehow damage the neighborhood. That neighborhood is gone! They wiped it out. Nothing Walmart or Ainbinder can do will destroy that area anymore than the surrounding homeowners have already done. A street with a 4 story apartment building, parking garage, vacant lots, a multi-story storage facility, railroad and concrete channelized bayou, surrounded by new townhome construction cannot be destroyed by a 'big box' retail store. The fact is, Walmart and the Ainbiner shopping center will fit right into this wasteland, largely created by the RUDH supporters who now complain.

To answer Vic Man, I don't know. I suppose we will see when the parties arrive at court.

[s3mh]

Two more words: Environmental Standing.

Organizational Standing. I just used Sierra Club because it is a famous supreme court case on organizational standing. Organizational standing is not limited to environmental issues. And section 380 is not a constitutional amendment. The constitution was amended after a 380 agreement between Bee Cave, TX and a developer was declared unconstitutional by an Austin court. The plaintiff was Save Our Springs Alliance, a non-profit organization claiming organizational standing on behalf of its members.

[RedScare]

I would love RUDH to argue against this 380 on environmental grounds. We must protect our brownfields. They are a part of the fabric of Houston, and building over them irreparably harms the character of the city.

[samagon]

Christopher J. Athans lives in an ugly beige townhome at 1415 Thompson Street (the southwest corner of Thompson & Kohler). It is part of a townhome complex that replaced lower-density development. Its development has created more traffic. Mr. Athans has acted irresponsibly and now attempts to create barriers to those who would do the same. He is a hypocrite. He should be made aware of that fact.

wow. I can think of a lot of nice names that start with D that describe this guy.

I would love RUDH to argue against this 380 on environmental grounds. We must protect our brownfields. They are a part of the fabric of Houston, and building over them irreparably harms the character of the city.

lol, how about turn it into a city park? Discovery Brownfield Park, leave all of the crap exactly like it is, and just rip down the gates. Don't worry about getting tetanus from stepping on that rusty nail, it's just part of the beauty of brownfield!!! Imagine how cool the putt putt course in there would be, and a nice dog run.

[Marksmu]

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

[J008]

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

I only hope they finally cut their grass and clean the grafitti off of the check cashing store they are building btw yale and heights.

[TheNiche]

wow. I can think of a lot of nice names that start with D that describe this guy.

And here are another three officers of the organization that I have identified by utilizing information and documents that are a matter of public record. It seems that they also enjoy lifestyles that are inconsistent with their organization's stated objectives.

Nicholas Urbano, Director

4221 Kohler Street, Houston, Texas 77007

It seems that Mr. Urbano is the first individual listed on the registration documents for RUDH, which are a matter of public record.

I was able to find evidence of Mr. Urbano's business associations by way of the Texas Secretary of State's SOSDirect database, and was initially tempted to post that information. After all, it is public record. ...but that would be without tact. Never let it said that TheNiche is without tact.

Also of interest is that RUDH's Certificate of Formation describes its purposes as follows: "This organization is 501c4 community association devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Huoston Heights and West End neighborhoods by representing the community before local government and educating the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community." I'm curious as to how Mr. Urbano's ugly new townhome fits into the scheme of this organization!

Eileen T. Crowley-Reed, Director

1315 Corlandt St., Houston, TX 77008

According to public record (SOS Direct), she started several companies at her place of residence (one at a time), then shut them down several years later. Information about them, including her contact information is all a matter of public record.

This individual purchased her home when it was brand spankin' new. Thankfully, (although she may be shut off from the world by iron fences and gates) it isn't fugly like her fellow activists' domiciles. All the same, there's no shortage of older homes that needed TLC in her neighborhood. She has done nothing in her personal life that would advance the organization's cause and I fail to see why she merits being appointed a director.

Anne G. Baumgardner, Director

507 Highland Street, Houston, TX 77009

This one also showed up in the public record (SOS Direct). Hers is the least aesthetically despicable house in my opinion, but it was still built in the 90's. It is hardly historic. Prior to living there, she and her husband lived at 1012 Bayland Street in a home remodeled by the previous owner prior to sale. It's amazing that not a single (known) member of an organization dedicated to preserving the neighborhood is known to have actively preserved anything. They're all talk, no sweat.

[Marksmu]

Its much easier to just tell people how to live rather than do so yourself....this comes as no surprise to me. I find that most people who push an agenda do so for financial or political reasons, but seldom practice what they preach....just look at Al Gore, or Michelle Obama...its just too inconvenient to practice what you preach! If you can just force others to change then you don't have too!

[Texasota]

Yes, Michelle Obama is SUCH a hypocrite, with her advocacy of healthy lifestyles yet fantastic physique.

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible. If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset. Admittedly the anchor tenant is an enormous part of the problem, but the fact that they have shown zero interest in neighborhood concerns is an even bigger problem.

All that being said, the Koehler St. house is absolutely hideous. It is also probably incredibly poorly built, and will become a maintenance nightmare for Mr. Urbano in a few years.

[SilverJK]

Funny that they couldn't get someone living in a 1910-1925 original to be the face of the group... this makes me think they have even less support than i thought they did (which was still rather small)

[TheNiche]

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible.

Our agreement regarding the fugly townhomes owned by Urbano and Athans notwithstanding, Crowley-Reed and Baumgardner have not done justice to RUDH's mission of preserving the neighborhood by buying and occupying homes that were built in the 90's. By purchasing the homes that they live in (which were not threatened with demolition or decay), they had foregone an opportunity to preserve and protect the genuine article. How many hundreds of grand old homes have been demolished since their puchases?

Is, "Preserve the 90's!" really so compelling a rallying cry?

If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset.

Since you're speaking to the thought processes of delusional NIMBY hypocrites whom I cannot begin to understand or sympathize with, clarification is necessary. What do you think "urbanism" means in their fairy world?

[Texasota]

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Texasota

[TheNiche]

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Density. A more intensively developed site is going to create more traffic. They might counter that a mix of uses could mitigate the traffic, and that's true to a certain extent. But how many retail businesses survive on a captive audience of a few hundred on-site residents? If office space were included in such a plan, that would be a total blowout where traffic is concerned. There's nothing quite to produce a twice-daily surge of traffic during the most congestion-prone hours like office space. Again, some people would no doubt make use of their feet. But if the ratio of residents and those employed on-site that drive versus persons that would walk or take transit is, say, 4:1 such as it is in the Galleria area, then density adds drivers faster than you add walkers. Density (without Manhattan-like transit) brings more traffic. It is an inescapable fact, one that I think they're aware of.

Orienting buildings toward the street. Surely you don't mean Yale? Half of the frontage along Yale is below-grade; that's why the site plan has buildings right up against Yale but facing away from it. People couldn't get there from here. Ya wanna fight about it!? Besides, this is the kind of thing that goes well aesthetically along with density. (A big box store facing the street is monolithic, at least as unappealing as a parking lot hidden by landscaping.) ...but density brings icky traffic. So that's out.

Heights bike trail. As a consequence of this project, it is being extended south of I-10, and extra-wide sidewalks and traffic lights will be installed to manage traffic. It'll be a whole lot safer for cyclists to get around than it had been previously, not to mention that with additional retail, cyclists will have more places close by to cycle to.

But honestly, I think that you nailed it. They'd be fine with density, they don't really care about traffic, they pretend not to realize what all is getting redone with the 380 Agreement, and they probably don't even care about it being a shopping center. (Did they organize against Target? Have they filed suit against Kroger yet?) They just care about the retail space being operated as a Wal-Mart. And that's just snobby ridiculousness.

[RedScare]

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Why would Heights residents favor density so close to the Heights? They've been passing ill-advised ordinances limiting density for years, and now you WANT density? Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

[J008]

And here are another three officers of the organization that I have identified by utilizing information and documents that are a matter of public record. It seems that they also enjoy lifestyles that are inconsistent with their organization's stated objectives.

I feel it is a bit creepy to list people's addresses whom you don't know to make some point about hypocrisy.

I guess the next step is to go dig through their trash tomorrow (since they probably leave their trash on a public street) and see if there are any starbucks cups or receipts from big box stores.

[TheNiche]

I feel it is a bit creepy to list people's addresses whom you don't know to make some point about hypocrisy.

I guess the next step is to go dig through their trash tomorrow (since they probably leave their trash on a public street) and see if there are any starbucks cups or receipts from big box stores.

My point was that people on this forum should contact RUDH members and inform them as to how and why they are hypocrites. Another poster suggested that picketing their homes might be appropriate.

Shortly thereafter, RUDH got an attorney to try to censor this forum of public information about persons active in the public realm. My suggestion that people should exercise their first amendment rights to free speech, directed at activists whose contact information is a matter of public record, was construed as a threat.

That's silly, of course, but one good turn deserves another, and so that is what motivated me to research the organization's leadership more thoroughly. It was only then that I discovered this pattern of hypocrisy among RUDH's leadership, ill-fitting with RUDH's stated goals.

And FYI, I was able to find out much more information about the members. However...I don't feel the need to disclose information about their family, their employment history, their failed business ventures, etc., and I'm even doing them the favor of keeping their (easily researched) telephone numbers off of HAIF. This is because I have tact. If our roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that they would be so kind.

[JJxvi]

But honestly, I think that you nailed it. They'd be fine with density, they don't really care about traffic, they pretend not to realize what all is getting redone with the 380 Agreement, and they probably don't even care about it being a shopping center. (Did they organize against Target? Have they filed suit against Kroger yet?) They just care about the retail space being operated as a Wal-Mart. And that's just snobby ridiculousness.

I don't like what you are trying to imply. The following is stated fairly clearly on RUDH's http://stopheightswalmart.org web page.

Isn’t this really just an effort by your group to keep WalMart out of your neighborhood?

No.

What do you have to say now?

[Marksmu]

Yes, Michelle Obama is SUCH a hypocrite, with her advocacy of healthy lifestyles yet fantastic physique.

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible. If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset. Admittedly the anchor tenant is an enormous part of the problem, but the fact that they have shown zero interest in neighborhood concerns is an even bigger problem.

All that being said, the Koehler St. house is absolutely hideous. It is also probably incredibly poorly built, and will become a maintenance nightmare for Mr. Urbano in a few years.

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down.

As to RUDH - they are anti Walmart snobs - they are not actually some group of taxpayers concerned about how our tax dollars are spent - they are anti-heights walmart snobs. They are pulling at any loose string they can to stop the Walmart. They dont care for Kroger much either so the Kroger will get some attention - but this whole thing would not ever have existed if it had been an HEB as they wanted.

[samagon]

I don't like what you are trying to imply. The following is stated fairly clearly on RUDH's http://stopheightswalmart.org web page.

What do you have to say now?

you don't have to like it.

the mission statement on the RUDH website states:

We are a community organization devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Heights and West End neighborhoods in Houston.

it is quite clear through the research done by TheNiche that they are not at all consistent in their application of preservation, specifically in their own choice of living accommodations which do not fall within the mission statement, and more generally on their lack of consistency in taking their action to other developers in the area that don't fit within the character, traditions and appearance of the heights, and west end neighborhood.

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

If our roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that they would be so kind.

How would you ever know?

[J008]

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down.

True. If only we had the guy who said that deficits don't matter then we'd finally end this hypocrisy.

T

[samagon]

How would you ever know?

They're willing to engage in a lawsuit to serve their selfish ends that will result in more taxpayer dollars being spent than they are purporting to try and save.

TheNiche is not making some off the wall baseless statement in assuming they would do the same thing as he did, he's basing it off their current and previous actions.

[s3mh]

They're willing to engage in a lawsuit to serve their selfish ends that will result in more taxpayer dollars being spent than they are purporting to try and save.

TheNiche is not making some off the wall baseless statement in assuming they would do the same thing as he did, he's basing it off their current and previous actions.

It doesn't cost over 6 mil to defend a lawsuit. And my point is that he would never know whether RUDH would make the same personal attack against him because no one knows who he is.

[samagon]

It doesn't cost over 6 mil to defend a lawsuit. And my point is that he would never know whether RUDH would make the same personal attack against him because no one knows who he is.

how do you know how much money the city will have to spend to defend this? regardless of cost, it is still taxpayer dollars that are used to defend this that are caused by this group. if it only costs a dollar, that's more than they should have to spend on this.

to your second statement, your intellect is truly dizzying, the fact is that it really is irrelevant. the fact is the members of iRUDH have a website dedicated to stopping one specific company from developing one specific parcel of land under the guise of preservation, and they are not stopping before they waste some of my tax dollars to further their selfish cause.

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[barracuda]

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down. As to RUDH - they are anti Walmart snobs - they are not actually some group of taxpayers concerned about how our tax dollars are spent - they are anti-heights walmart snobs. They are pulling at any loose string they can to stop the Walmart. They dont care for Kroger much either so the Kroger will get some attention - but this whole thing would not ever have existed if it had been an HEB as they wanted.

Your claim about vacation was widely refuted back in August. After 31 months in office, Obama had taken 61 vacation days, compared to 180 days for Bush and 112 days for Reagan at the same point in their presidencies. http://www.cbsnews.c...n20093801.shtml

I know facts won't change some people's opinions, but anyway, I'm not sure what attacking Michelle and the president have to do with the Heights Walmart...

[J008]

how do you know how much money the city will have to spend to defend this? regardless of cost, it is still taxpayer dollars that are used to defend this that are caused by this group. if it only costs a dollar, that's more than they should have to spend on this.

to your second statement, your intellect is truly dizzying, the fact is that it really is irrelevant. the fact is the members of iRUDH have a website dedicated to stopping one specific company from developing one specific parcel of land under the guise of preservation, and they are not stopping before they waste some of my tax dollars to further their selfish cause.

The city doesn't have to defend it. They can spend as much or as little as they want (or as you allow them).

[samagon]

The city doesn't have to defend it. They can spend as much or as little as they want (or as you allow them).

iRUDH didn't have to sue the city.

how far back do you want to go on this?

the fact is, they did sue, and the city will defend. it's a fairly reasonable reaction by the city to the action of iRUDH.

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon