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

My point is that the situation under discussion was not dependent on the developer. The City apparently did a poor job overseeing the Washington Heights 380 work. That is independent of the developer. I haven't made any comment on the Montrose HEB, as it isn't relevant here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the situation under discussion was not dependent on the developer. The City apparently did a poor job overseeing the Washington Heights 380 work. That is independent of the developer. I haven't made any comment on the Montrose HEB, as it isn't relevant here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you actually went over there, you would see the grass is almost dead from foot traffic cutting a path on that side of the street. People are using it. The only people who aren't using it are handicapped people. But it isn't like there is a federal law protecting their right to access public places."

If all of the Heights was so opposed to WM as you have implied why is the grass dead?

HTX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ross, "I brought up HEB because they were a potential developer for Washington Heights. Absent City oversight, they would have done exactly the same thing Ainbinder/WalMart did."

 

I totally & wholeheartedly disagree. I have seen a number of new HEB stores built in New Braunfels, Smithson Valley & San Antonio. Every single one of them has been a class act - beautiful mature oak trees in the parking lots just like the Montrose location here. HEB is a class act - they understand & care about their customers and go the extra mile. Wal_mart - they care about the bottom line...only.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the situation under discussion was not dependent on the developer. The City apparently did a poor job overseeing the Washington Heights 380 work. That is independent of the developer. I haven't made any comment on the Montrose HEB, as it isn't relevant here.

 

So, your argument is that developers are basically like little toddlers.  They cannot understand right from wrong and should not be held responsible for not doing the work correctly?  

 

The City is certainly to blame, but Walmart and the developer cannot just walk away from this mess.  Walmart and the developer both made public presentations at the big public meeting at the GRB.  Walmart and the developer both made a big public relations push with media campaigns and lobbying efforts to fight the opposition to the development and get the 380 passed.  A central point of that PR campaign was the promise to do infrastructure improvements.  (still up on the Ainbinder webstie: http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html).

 

The Montrose HEB is hugely relevant.  HEB went to great additional expense to serve the community.  They paid for road improvements out of pocket.  They offerred to do structured parking and dedicate a portion of the property to park space if funds could be raised to buy it at FMV (gee, why didn't the City do a 380 for that?).  They used a world class architect for the building design and let the community vote on the design.  In short, they lived up to their promises regardless of the cost without having to have the City hold their hand and make them do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! Oh the humanity!

 

 

 

260px-Hindenburg_burning.jpg

 

I once saw someone in a handicapped scooted get stuck in the drainage ditch at Tulane and 11th street where there is no ADA curb cut there.  They tried to drive on the grass, but got a wheel stuck in the drainage ditch and almost tipped over.  Before I got to them, someone on 11th pulled over and helped push them out of the ditch and back on to the sidewalk.  Walking on the grass isn't a big deal (unless you are the one who took 6 mil in tax dollars and promised to build a sidewalk there).  But for someone who is handicapped who might try to get through that spot instead of crossing Yale and crossing back again (almost an equally dangerous move given the short time pedestrians have to cross Yale), it is a Hindenberg moment for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I wasn't going to respond to your incessant whining, as it has grown tiresome to see a grown adult cry over and over and over about the same spilled milk. However, since you bring up the wheelchair angle again, I now must tell the story of how last Saturday (May 25) while riding my back on Yale I saw a guy in a chair at the exact corner you speak of. He crossed Yale at the crosswalk, and was none the worse for wear. I was on the other side of Yale and spoke to him when he crossed. He smiled and said hello back to me. For all of your carping and whining, I would have at least expected him to be angry at having to cross the street, but he wasn't.

 

The lesson to be learned here apparently is that those in wheelchairs have a much better outlook on life than those who hate Walmarts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sidewalk talk is a bunch of crap.  There will be sidewalks on both sides of Yale from bridge of death, to railroad graffiti pit of night terror once development by all developers is complete. I have no idea why this is even an issue.  Even right now, thanks to Ainbender north of Koehler, and Orr south, that stretch of Yale on the east side has a sidewalk when it was just broken up parking lot, old sidewalks overgrown with grass, and stretches without sidewalk at all, prior to development.

 

The fact that thee is a big stink about a couple hundred feet is still left without a sidewalk in an area where it would likely be about to be closed for construction of the new development, have curb cuts added, and have it all torn up anyway to fit the new developers site plan, etc is ludicrous.

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

The Montrose HEB is hugely relevant.  HEB went to great additional expense to serve the community.  They paid for road improvements out of pocket.  They offerred to do structured parking and dedicate a portion of the property to park space if funds could be raised to buy it at FMV (gee, why didn't the City do a 380 for that?).  They used a world class architect for the building design and let the community vote on the design.  In short, they lived up to their promises regardless of the cost without having to have the City hold their hand and make them do the right thing.

 

This rant points up just how little s3mh and his fellow whiners care about those with lower incomes. All of the things he brags that HEB did cost money. HEB is a business, so those things must be paid for in addition to profit. Therefore, the products sold at this HEB cost more, so that titty babies may be soothed by nice architecture at their grocery store. (Of course, they make up a lot of it by forcing us to buy their store brand at every aisle.) 

 

This is the hypocrisy of the "enlightened". They demand that everyone else sacrifice for their pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEB is a business, so those things must be paid for in addition to profit.

 

As any other business, they are constrained by supply and demand. I find the prices quite reasonable. The store is popular and stays very busy, so perhaps they are making it up on volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As any other business, they are constrained by supply and demand. I find the prices quite reasonable. The store is popular and stays very busy, so perhaps they are making it up on volume.

 

Not necessarily. I find the exact same brands for sale at Whole Foods and Kroger. Items for sale for $3.49 at Kroger go for $4.99 at Whole Foods. Whole Foods is not constrained by supply and demand, as they have convinced a sizable clientele that it is worth paying more for the same products. While not as big a gap, HEB has marketed itself similarly. I have shopped at the HEB on Katy Fwy and one in a lower middle class neighborhood in Conroe, and have noticed differences in prices between the stores.

 

It matters where you shop. HEB has simply figured out how to gouge shoppers in upper middle class neighborhoods. Good for them...and good for you that you do not mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what gouging feels like from shopping at the Midtown Randall's and even the Montrose Kroger. Of course people have to pay more for groceries in Montrose or Midtown compared to Conroe. Land costs more. But HEB has good prices in comparison to the other grocery stores in the area, so apparently the improvements they made did not cost them so much that they had to jack up the prices above the market rate.

 

HEB could have built the store however they wanted because property owners are king in Texas. They chose to leave some good trees, to have an excellent bike rack with a full set of tools, and to choose a design that the community liked. These things earn them customers, and therefore profits. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walmart's business model is built on being lean and efficient, and eschewing things architecture flourishes makes sense for them in areas where price is the main competitive factor. This doesn't necessarily mean they sell items for less, but they may have more flexibility in pricing out competitors or increasing their profit. 

 

But I personally like the idea of businesses building for the long term rather than employing bare-minium strip mall architecture that will be tired in ten years. It would be a depressingly ugly world if everyone built to the lowest-common denominator. In a competitive environment like Houston, and in a generally affluent area like this particular location, putting a little extra effort into attractive architecture (for a strip mall) and accessible sidewalks should help with customer loyalty and attract and maintain more customers over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I wasn't going to respond to your incessant whining, as it has grown tiresome to see a grown adult cry over and over and over about the same spilled milk. However, since you bring up the wheelchair angle again, I now must tell the story of how last Saturday (May 25) while riding my back on Yale I saw a guy in a chair at the exact corner you speak of. He crossed Yale at the crosswalk, and was none the worse for wear. I was on the other side of Yale and spoke to him when he crossed. He smiled and said hello back to me. For all of your carping and whining, I would have at least expected him to be angry at having to cross the street, but he wasn't.

 

The lesson to be learned here apparently is that those in wheelchairs have a much better outlook on life than those who hate Walmarts.

 

Fortunately, we lived in a civilized society where people who get pleasure out of seeing a handicapped person struggle with non-compliant sidewalks are not the same people who write and enforce the regulations for the Americans with Disabilities Act.  I used to work with high school kids and had a kid with MD.  He was wheel chair bound by age 10 and did not live long enought to graduate high school.  Every school trip we took with him presented mobility issues regardless of where we went.  For every well built and compliant facility, there are three that are either substandard or pre-ADA compliance.  He always seemed to have a great time on trips regarless of how many times he had to be lifted up an entry way or needed help getting in and out of a bathroom.  But his parents told me that he would always try to find a way to get out of going on field trips because he was embarassed whenever he needed help getting around.  Thus, the standard for the ADA is not whether one guy appears to be ok with the unnecessary trouble and inconvenience of having to cross a street and cross it back because a municipality and a developer were unwilling to put up the money to comply with the law. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sidewalk talk is a bunch of crap.  There will be sidewalks on both sides of Yale from bridge of death, to railroad graffiti pit of night terror once development by all developers is complete. I have no idea why this is even an issue.  Even right now, thanks to Ainbender north of Koehler, and Orr south, that stretch of Yale on the east side has a sidewalk when it was just broken up parking lot, old sidewalks overgrown with grass, and stretches without sidewalk at all, prior to development.

 

The fact that thee is a big stink about a couple hundred feet is still left without a sidewalk in an area where it would likely be about to be closed for construction of the new development, have curb cuts added, and have it all torn up anyway to fit the new developers site plan, etc is ludicrous.

 

There is no ROW left for a sidewalk on the old SJ Stone property.  The widening of Yale St. took up most of the ROW.  The City will have to take part of the old SJ Stone property in an eminent domain proceeding to get the needed ROW for a sidewalk.  The developer has no obligation to put a sidewalk on their own property if the City has made it impossible to build one in the ROW.  And it isn't just a few hundred feet of sidewalk.  It is an intersection with two crosswalks instead of four, crubling curbs, a sidewalks with a fire hydrant in the middle of the crosswalks, and failure to properly mitigate the loss of trees in the ROW.  If the City did this or the developer paid their own way, it would just be annoying.  But this was all stuff that was promised in order to get support for a tax deal that saved the developer millions in infrastructure upgrade costs.  And just because they built sidewalks on one side of the street where the sidewalks had previously deteriorated does not mean that they get to elect whether to build a sidewalk on the other side of the street.  It is a good thing that none of you are general contractors.  The subs would eat you alive with your attitude of "they did a good job over there  . . . it is only a small section they blew off." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no ROW left for a sidewalk on the old SJ Stone property.  The widening of Yale St. took up most of the ROW.  The City will have to take part of the old SJ Stone property in an eminent domain proceeding to get the needed ROW for a sidewalk.  The developer has no obligation to put a sidewalk on their own property if the City has made it impossible to build one in the ROW.  And it isn't just a few hundred feet of sidewalk.  It is an intersection with two crosswalks instead of four, crubling curbs, a sidewalks with a fire hydrant in the middle of the crosswalks, and failure to properly mitigate the loss of trees in the ROW.  If the City did this or the developer paid their own way, it would just be annoying.  But this was all stuff that was promised in order to get support for a tax deal that saved the developer millions in infrastructure upgrade costs.  And just because they built sidewalks on one side of the street where the sidewalks had previously deteriorated does not mean that they get to elect whether to build a sidewalk on the other side of the street.  It is a good thing that none of you are general contractors.  The subs would eat you alive with your attitude of "they did a good job over there  . . . it is only a small section they blew off." 

 

So, let me make sure I understand this....

 

Because there is no room thanks to making the street being wider, a sidewalk cannot be put in.

 

But, walmart should have put in a sidewalk anyway? On land they don't own?

 

Walmart should have stolen property from another person to build the sidewalk for you so you could complain that they took land from another landowner to build a sidewalk?

 

And then they only put in crosswalks where there are sidewalks? I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! I am shocked and outraged! I am outraged and shocked! I am outraged!!!! This is preposterous!!! I am preposterously outraged! I am preposterously outraged and shocked!

 

I am glad there wasn't money wasted putting in crosswalks to sidewalks that don't exist which walmart should have put on land it doesn't own.

 

excellent points all around s3mh, as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the crosswalks meet at a corner with no sidewalks.  So there are crosswalks where there are no sidewalks.   Go take a look.

 

The City/Ainbinder/Walmart should have bought/eminent domain the land to build the sidewalk or not widened the road.  The approved plans show the sidewalk.  Ainbinder's own marketing materials show the sidewalk. 

 

You pretty much don't understand it.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the sidewalk would have been built, s3mh and leonard would be complaining about more wasted money Walmart spent  because they will just be torn up during the development of the SJS lot. 

 

 

Again...  walmart is mentioned with this every time in every negative post, and they have nothing to do with this at all.  Ainbinder and the City are the ones your issues are with...

 

And FWIW,  HEB sucks.  I used to shop their exclusively, but they really went downhill over the past several years.  The produce selection at the newish Montrose HEB is absolutely terrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And FWIW,  HEB sucks.  I used to shop their exclusively, but they really went downhill over the past several years.  The produce selection at the newish Montrose HEB is absolutely terrible. 

 

I got some awesome mandarins there a little while back and they were delicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying you enjoy seeing handicapped people struggle isn't sarcasm.  It does, however, expose your character. 

 

It certainly does. It shows that my character absolutely loves poking a finger into the eyes of humorless tightasses such as yourselves. I might even describe y'all as a couple of humor retards...but Mayor Parker might get annoyed with me. Oh, wait, I'm annoyed with her anyway!

 

 

 

You know, no post about wheelchairs and retards is complete without a cripple fight reference...

 

Cripple_2a7fef_456831.jpg

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't sarcasm and it wasn't funny.  Just mean-spirited hate. 

 

You don't really get to decide whether it was sarcasm or not...  nor if it was funny or not.  (this is just another example of an elitist mentality thinking you know what is best for all, and speaking for all without their consent).  I'm sure someone read the comments and chuckled (I didn't). 

 

I do agree that it was classless...  but that ship has long sailed in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure a lot of people think handicapped people falling over is funny, but what Red said is still not sarcasm even if you think it's funny. 

 

I don't speak for "all" (no idea where you got that), whether something is funny or not is clearly an opinion.

 

For example, I think samagon's rant about the sidewalks and crosswalks is hilarious:

 

"And then they only put in crosswalks where there are sidewalks? I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! I am shocked and outraged! I am outraged and shocked! I am outraged!!!! This is preposterous!!! I am preposterously outraged! I am preposterously outraged and shocked!"

 

It's funny (to me) because they didn't put the crosswalks where the sidewalks were, the crosswalks meet at a corner where there are no sidewalks.  Hahahhahaha!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, check out for a few days and things get interesting. You would think by all the drama that someone suggested that the Foodarama be moved to 19th street. You know that might be a good idea considering they're local.

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

Yes, I'm sure a lot of people think handicapped people falling over is funny, but what Red said is still not sarcasm even if you think it's funny. 

 

Sarcasm is usually when you say the opposite of what you truly believe for effect. Like "Oh yeah, I'm sure I would have found that hilarious to see a handicapped person falling. :huh:"

So whether or not it was sarcasm, that is for Red to say. Tone doesn't transfer well over the inkernets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think the sidewalks on I10 are not wide enough. I should have enough room to pass while walking no matter if HPD is running traffic enforcement operations. The Heights got screwed again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't really get to decide whether it was sarcasm or not...  nor if it was funny or not.  (this is just another example of an elitist mentality thinking you know what is best for all, and speaking for all without their consent).  I'm sure someone read the comments and chuckled (I didn't). 

 

I do agree that it was classless...  but that ship has long sailed in this thread.

 

Actually,  yes you do get to decide if it was sarcasm or funny...this isn't elitist mentality - it is a fundamental right of civilized society. If we don't speak up for what it right then we descend into chaos & anarchy. Some things are truly right, truly sacred - making fun of handicappedpeople truly decends beyond the pale. I'm sure I'll get heavily burned for this, but frankly I find this antipathy & carelessness for those who have suffered so much already to be truly and heartlessly offensive. I find this specially offensive in regards to our military personnel who are returning from war with cruel & debilitating  injuries. I just returned today from dropping off one of our proud veterans from the VA hospital - frankly Redscare & SilverJK you disgust me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, nice jump to a conclusion, mako. You'll fit in well here. I see that you've been a member all of 3 days, so you don't know the back story to this thread. I wouldn't dare waste any time trying to explain it to you. Your post sounds like you'd rather jump in without knowing anything and begin demagogueing, just like my other two favorite posters. Well, if that is what turns your crank, prepare to be infuriated, because I love nothing more than annoying those who take themselves too seriously.

 

Oh, and welcome to the forum! Be sure to follow me around as I engage in my own delightful brand of sarcasm/non-sarcasm/humor/non-humor/troll/non-troll/baiting/non-baiting. It may not be funny, but it is damned entertaining! Who knows, once you read my more than 13,000 posts, you may actually figure me out...but, I doubt it, as I don't think you'd actually spend the time to get it right before jumping to conclusions. Cuz we all know jumping to conclusions is more fun! Almost as much fun as making fun of cripples!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or a school bus full of screaming children plunging off the Bridge of Death....that was fun and funny. But getting serious for a bit, what really pisses me off is misdirected, demeaning pity. Even humorless people must steer clear of that insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually,  yes you do get to decide if it was sarcasm or funny...this isn't elitist mentality - it is a fundamental right of civilized society. If we don't speak up for what it right then we descend into chaos & anarchy. Some things are truly right, truly sacred - making fun of handicappedpeople truly decends beyond the pale. I'm sure I'll get heavily burned for this, but frankly I find this antipathy & carelessness for those who have suffered so much already to be truly and heartlessly offensive. I find this specially offensive in regards to our military personnel who are returning from war with cruel & debilitating  injuries. I just returned today from dropping off one of our proud veterans from the VA hospital - frankly Redscare & SilverJK you disgust me!

 

I can't believe we're still discussing this, but actually, only the author can say his intentions. And he stated it was meant as a sarcastic statement. It may have been so dry it was missed as such, it may have been in poor taste, but what he meant is not up for debate, if he meant it to be sarcastic, then that's what he meant. How you interpret it, that's completely different.

 

Funny is indeed at your own discretion.

 

I had to stop by walmart last night for a cheap radio, which I got, $25 out the door for a pair of speakers attached to a radio tuner, not a bad deal for the garage.

 

It was about 8pm and the parking lot was full, ironically, as I was leaving there was someone crossing the street at the crosswalk, and had ample time to make it across before the lights turned red.

 

Leonard, I did pay attention to how the crosswalk is configured, and while yes, it does cross towards where there are no sidewalk, I still don't see a problem with it. I can point you to a whole slew of other signals in other parts of town that are far worse, even some in town, like downtown. imagine, sidewalks are there, but they are in such disrepair that they cannot be used, and then there are sidewalks which are in perfect health, but stop at the intersection with no crosswalk at all! this is near the basketball arena, can you believe it, a place where walking is promoted as a way to get from your car to the arena and sidewalks and crosswalks are either unsafe, or don't exist? 

 

At least with this walmart I've only ever seen one person walking, and they managed it just fine with only 2 crosswalks.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

samagon, you had a nice rant about yesterday about how crosswalks should only go to corners with sidewalks.  Now you're fine with it because that's how Ainbinder did it. 

 

Just because you can find something worse, doesn't make something else good - sifting down to the lowest common denominator isn't what the City said it was giving Ainbinder $6M for.  The sales pitch, among other things, was specifically that sidewalks and trees would be better.  They are not.  The sales pitch wasn't "yeah, it's gonna be crap, but there is worse crap out there so keep your whining to yourself." 


 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

samagon, you had a nice rant about yesterday about how crosswalks should only go to corners with sidewalks.  Now you're fine with it because that's how Ainbinder did it. 

 

Just because you can find something worse, doesn't make something else good - sifting down to the lowest common denominator isn't what the City said it was giving Ainbinder $6M for.  The sales pitch, among other things, was specifically that sidewalks and trees would be better.  They are not.  The sales pitch wasn't "yeah, it's gonna be crap, but there is worse crap out there so keep your whining to yourself." 

 

 

Yes, I am fine cause I saw it.

 

Same as you guys ranting about stuff that doesn't matter, except the thing of it is, after seeing the thing laid out, no it isn't nearly as bad as you try to make it out to be. You see, unlike you, I am able to adjust my opinion based on updated facts and seeing things for myself.

 

Obviously you don't understand that, and that's fine, you'll continue to hate.

 

Yes, it could be better, yes, the city could have forced SJ stone to sell some land to walmart (I'd loved to have seen that cause you'd be even more livid).

 

You appear to have phrase and adjective problems.

 

Don't confuse "it could be better" with "it is crap" these are not interchangeable phrases, as they do not mean the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me make sure I understand this....

 

Because there is no room thanks to making the street being wider, a sidewalk cannot be put in.

 

But, walmart should have put in a sidewalk anyway? On land they don't own?

 

Walmart should have stolen property from another person to build the sidewalk for you so you could complain that they took land from another landowner to build a sidewalk?

 

And then they only put in crosswalks where there are sidewalks? I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! I am shocked and outraged! I am outraged and shocked! I am outraged!!!! This is preposterous!!! I am preposterously outraged! I am preposterously outraged and shocked!

 

I am glad there wasn't money wasted putting in crosswalks to sidewalks that don't exist which walmart should have put on land it doesn't own.

 

excellent points all around s3mh, as usual.

 

Yale had to be widened in order to put in a left turn lane to serve the development.  That work had to be done per the TIA.  When they did the plans, they forgot to actually go out to the site and look at where the big utility poles were.  They thought that they were going to be able to build a sidewalk on what was left of the ROW after widening Yale.  They built the new road and then learned that there was no room for a sidewalk because of the utility poles.  Then, they just blew off building the sidewalk because the only way to build a sidewalk was to extend the ROW by eminent domain. 

 

If you believe that sidewalks are not needed in an area heavy with retail development, including a retailer that caters to low income folks who use public transportation and walk to shopping, then you hold an opinion that is not shared by the vast majority of the public.  The reality is that the way it works is that the City requires anyone widening a road to build a new sidewalk if the existing sidewalk is demolished by the new road construction.  If there is not enough ROW to rebuild the sidewalk, the developer will have to pay the City to get additional land through eminent domain or change their plans so that there is no need to widen the street.  Ainbinder had a 6 mil head start on building this development.  Getting a thin strip of land by eminent domain for a sidewalk would not have cost more than $200k max (@8x400x$50 to 60).  This would be chicken change compared to the overal cost that taxpayers were shelling out for the improvements.  The developer should have assumed the risk of this kind of cost overrun if the 380 agreement was actually intended to deliver the infrastructure promised.  But, that is not what happened.  No sidewalks were built.  No right turn lane on Yale St.  Inadequate crosswalks on Koehler.  Inadequate tree cover mitigation.  Failure to relocate fire hydrant in the middle of the sidewalk.  Without a 380 agreement, the City would have come down and red tagged all of this and hammered the developer for failing to build according to city standards.  But, with the 380 agreement, the inadequacies become a political liability and are swept under the rug.  The standard goes from getting the best infrastructure with a 380 agreement to "well, sure they screwed up stuff, but shut up.  It isn't a big deal." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leonard, I did pay attention to how the crosswalk is configured, and while yes, it does cross towards where there are no sidewalk, I still don't see a problem with it. I can point you to a whole slew of other signals in other parts of town that are far worse, even some in town, like downtown. imagine, sidewalks are there, but they are in such disrepair that they cannot be used, and then there are sidewalks which are in perfect health, but stop at the intersection with no crosswalk at all! this is near the basketball arena, can you believe it, a place where walking is promoted as a way to get from your car to the arena and sidewalks and crosswalks are either unsafe, or don't exist? 

 

At least with this walmart I've only ever seen one person walking, and they managed it just fine with only 2 crosswalks.

 

Again, if it was the City operating on scarce funds to try to keep up with development, we could understand if corners were cut.  But, the entire justification for the 380 agreement was that it would take care of the needed infrastructure, including sidewalks and crosswalks.  Had the City and the developer told City Council that they were going to blow off a sidewalk, only have two cross walks at an intersection, leave a fire hydrant in the middle of the sidewalk and blow off the tree mitigation, City Council would have never approved the 380 agreement or insisted that it be modified to make funds available to do the extra work needed.  But during debate at City Council, the propnents of the 380 agreement didn't say "this won't fix everything, but that is ok because it will be better than it was before and other parts of town are worse.  People will manage just fine with a below standard development." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you adjusted your opinion to be fine with whatever Ainbinder/Walmart/Mayor Parker did. 

 

It is crap, and it could be better.  Even your precious precious Ainbinder agrees.  Did you watch Channel 26's video?  Ainbinder isn't finished! 

 

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/22451826/2013/05/29/heights-residents-demand-answers-from-city-leaders

 

so why is this even being discussed if they are going to do more?

 

oh yeah, cause you hate walmart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...