Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[TheNiche]

Fail. Utter fail. Other than your interpretation of the vague, boilerplate language on the mission statement (I am fairly certain it is just a modification of language from the IRS code as I have seen very similar language for other organizations), show me one single statement from RUDH stating that the organization has taken a position regarding historic preservation os single family homes in the Heights and the West End. In fact, lets make it interesting. If you do, I promise I will never post on this message board again. You all will be able to go on railing against the rabble who dare to stand up against the perfect humans who develop real estate and know far better what is best for the community than the ignorant slobs that live in the community without the threat of having to get anything other than the loving responses of your sycophants at HAIF.

I will tell you that if you try, you won't find anything. I had hoped that RUDH would get behind historic preservation and watched carefully to see if they would. To my disappointment, they never took a position one way or the other. Instead, the focus has been the Walmart site and the use of 380 agreements. But, if you prove me wrong, I will stand by my bet and be done with HAIF forever. And it is a unilateral bet. You have nothing to lose. If you cannot produce anything beyond your personal interpretation of the broad language of the mission statement, then you owe me nothing.

What is written in the incorporating documents is important for a reason! It provides for a limitation of the purposes to which the donors can expect that their money will be put to use. It is the basis for an implicit trust between the organization and its donors. If that verbiage is meaningless or is so broadly construed as to become meaningless, then it is my opinion that RUDH effectively has no purpose and should not qualify for tax exempt status.

If they can't take this stuff seriously, then RUDH needs new leadership or should disolve.

And your anonymity justification is really just a website design criticism. Are you really saying that an organization that does not have a tab on its website that lists the board of directors entitles people to post the directors personal information on the internet? Well, take a look at this: http://www.hpra.org/. The Houston Property Rights Association. Probably the ying to RUDH's yang. See any contact information on their website? See any information about their directors? They are a non-profit organization. They avoid paying taxes on their income and rely on donations to fund their organization. Are you going to look up their directors' and officers' home addresses to see whether they are property owners or not? It would be hypocritical to be a director of that organization and not actually be a property owner. Shouldn't people be able to go to these people's home address, knock on their door and tell them that they are hypocrites? Obviously, the answer is NO!!! No decent and civil person would ever suggest any kind of harassment like that. It is fair game to attack the organization and express your opinions about what the organization is doing. But, to put personal information on the internet based on a falacious ad hominem attack is really nothing more that an admission that you have no good argument on the merits and must resort to swift boat-esque personal attacks on individuals in order to support your notion that developers know what is best for our communities and the people who actually live in the communities should just shut up and bow down before the great developer. All you have shown is that you are a master internet troll who has turned a lively and contentious debate about a major development in the Heights into a debate about you.

You are welcome to criticize HPRA. I don't have a dog in that fight. There are a number of mismanaged organizations; that fact by iteself should not excuse RUDH from being one of them.

[TheNiche]

Based primarily on the TX SOS site and google maps?

I'd like to think my lifestyle is more interesting than one can deduce from those two sites.

Mostly just HCAD and Google Streetview, actually.

A person's place of residence and the circumstances of their purchase reveal a great deal about their lifestyle preferences.

Considering that six out of six of the RUDH officers that are financially vested in the community have purchased new housing stock rather than make any effort to preserve the character, traditions, and appearance of the neighborhood--even though they clearly had the financial wherewithall to do so--I think that the evidence is valid and statistically significant.

You are welcome to disagree, and I'm sure that you will; but consider that every time you and s3mk reply to me, it validates the threat that I pose to RUDH's credibility. That is to say, if it were so obvious to everyone that I should not be taken seriously, then you wouldn't take me seriously either.

[J008]

Mostly just HCAD and Google Streetview, actually.

A person's place of residence and the circumstances of their purchase reveal a great deal about their lifestyle preferences.

Considering that six out of six of the RUDH officers that are financially vested in the community have purchased new housing stock rather than make any effort to preserve the character, traditions, and appearance of the neighborhood--even though they clearly had the financial wherewithall to do so--I think that the evidence is valid and statistically significant.

You are welcome to disagree, and I'm sure that you will; but consider that every time you and s3mk reply to me, it validates the threat that I pose to RUDH's credibility. That is to say, if it were so obvious to everyone that I should not be taken seriously, then you wouldn't take me seriously either.

Actually, you make quite a few good points in an intellectual and interesting way, though your conclusions are different than mine.

I only started chiming in again because I think the name and address and the satellite analysis of their homes is really creepy. I really don't think you are a threat to their cause but to some (me included) listing their addresses implies a threat of a different sort. Especially when your point could be just as easily made without it.

Obviously we disagree.

On another note:

You'd think since corps are people too, that it would be more appropriate to just picket RUDH's charter.

[samagon]

Actually, you make quite a few good points in an intellectual and interesting way, though your conclusions are different than mine.

I only started chiming in again because I think the name and address and the satellite analysis of their homes is really creepy. I really don't think you are a threat to their cause but to some (me included) listing their addresses implies a threat of a different sort. Especially when your point could be just as easily made without it.

Obviously we disagree.

On another note:

You'd think since corps are people too, that it would be more appropriate to just picket RUDH's charter.

what threat is implied by listing the addresses of the board members? the threat that people may see that the board members of RUDH ascribe to live by different standards than the charter by which the organization they founded?

Is it too late for them to change the charter to something more specific and analogous to the activities of RUDH? Perhaps it should read:

this is a community organization committed to fighting walmart from being built in or near the heights.

at least that would be an accurate description of their activities to date.

How's that?

Edited November 10, 2011 by samagon

[samagon]

example of a non-profit organization dedicated to the heights:

http://www.houstonheights.org/overview.htm

wowo!! a list of the board members???!!!!

http://www.houstonheights.org/board.htm

jeez, I bet they are going to contact Editor in an effort to have me censored!!!

[TheNiche]

I only started chiming in again because I think the name and address and the satellite analysis of their homes is really creepy. I really don't think you are a threat to their cause but to some (me included) listing their addresses implies a threat of a different sort. Especially when your point could be just as easily made without it.

Obviously we disagree.

It is my opinion that the officers' lifestyle preferences are in conflict with the intent of the organization that they lead. In order to credibly support that opinion as something more than speculation, I offer pertinent facts sourced from the public record. I stated earlier that I came across many other details about their personal lives, also a matter of public record. However I chose not to reveal them on HAIF because those are not pertinent facts that support my opinion.

The RUDH officers assumed the role of public figures by incorporating this entity and then suing my City. They have no expectation of privacy and they should not automatically expect politeness from every random individual on the internet (although they might've obtained it had they been forthright with me and asked nicely).

On another note:

You'd think since corps are people too, that it would be more appropriate to just picket RUDH's charter.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Corporations are legal entities with rights and responsibilities and that afford some protections to its members. I don't always agree with the law as written, interpreted, or practiced (particularly where non-profits are concerned), but the law is what it is. If I just bloviated on the basis of my own sense of morality and ethics, ignoring the effect of law and other real-world constraints, then my contribution to HAIF or the public discourse would be superficial. It'd be 'intellectual masturbation'...to coin a term.

Edited November 10, 2011 by TheNiche

[s3mh]

What is written in the incorporating documents is important for a reason! It provides for a limitation of the purposes to which the donors can expect that their money will be put to use. It is the basis for an implicit trust between the organization and its donors. If that verbiage is meaningless or is so broadly construed as to become meaningless, then it is my opinion that RUDH effectively has no purpose and should not qualify for tax exempt status.

If they can't take this stuff seriously, then RUDH needs new leadership or should disolve.

You are welcome to criticize HPRA. I don't have a dog in that fight. There are a number of mismanaged organizations; that fact by iteself should not excuse RUDH from being one of them.

You had your chance. I am still here and you are still wrong. The fact of the matter is that you concocted a strawman argument about RUDH in order to come up with an ad hominem attack when you had nothing of value to contribute about the merits of the lawsuit. Instead of discussing whether the largest corporation in the US and a wealthy developer are legally entitled to take 6 mil in tax dollars to pad their profit margin, you chose to make a cowardly attack on people you do not know and completely crossed the line by suggesting that people go to their homes and tell them they are hypocrites for buying new or recent construction. It is an Ann Coulter-esque argument. It is not meant to discuss the merits of the issues, but to kick sand in people's eyes and get people made at you for doing it. It is what sells Ann Coulter's books and is what cripples our democracy from functioning.

And the mission statement is broad in order to allow the organization to chart its own course without having to go back and have a special board meeting to amend the mission statement. RUDH has clearly charted a course and has pages and pages of statements about urban development on their website. You ignore all of it and chart a course for them based on your subjective interpretation of a broad mission statement in order to have your little Ann Coulter moment. But you have never had anything to say on the merits. You just call concerned citizens snobs and attack and try to intimidate people for having the guts to stand up against powerful interests based on a phony argument. It is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

[Ross]

WalMart isn't the biggest corporation in the US.

And, Ainbinder and WalMart aren't padding their profit margins with the $6 million from the 380 agreement, they have to pay that money out up front, and get reimbursed later. You can argue over whether the City should have to pay for the infrastructure (I say it does), but there's no $6 million gift to developers. And, really, we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was HEB or Whole Foods. RUDH only hates certain developments, not all of them, and that makes them hypocrites.

[TheNiche]

You had your chance. I am still here and you are still wrong. The fact of the matter is that you concocted a strawman argument about RUDH in order to come up with an ad hominem attack when you had nothing of value to contribute about the merits of the lawsuit. Instead of discussing whether the largest corporation in the US and a wealthy developer are legally entitled to take 6 mil in tax dollars to pad their profit margin, you chose to make a cowardly attack on people you do not know and completely crossed the line by suggesting that people go to their homes and tell them they are hypocrites for buying new or recent construction. It is an Ann Coulter-esque argument. It is not meant to discuss the merits of the issues, but to kick sand in people's eyes and get people made at you for doing it. It is what sells Ann Coulter's books and is what cripples our democracy from functioning.

And the mission statement is broad in order to allow the organization to chart its own course without having to go back and have a special board meeting to amend the mission statement. RUDH has clearly charted a course and has pages and pages of statements about urban development on their website. You ignore all of it and chart a course for them based on your subjective interpretation of a broad mission statement in order to have your little Ann Coulter moment. But you have never had anything to say on the merits. You just call concerned citizens snobs and attack and try to intimidate people for having the guts to stand up against powerful interests based on a phony argument. It is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

Wow. Isn't the person accusing someone of "an Ann Coulter moment" having "an Ann Coulter moment"? Pot, meet kettle. Maybe you could dial back the incendiary nature of your comments, just a tad, and we could focus on substance. Also, I think that you need to go back through the written record. You seem to have forgotten our earlier discussion of the merits of the case, and you also seem to be confusing the commentary of other posters with my own. ...that is, if I understand your criticisms correctly. Some of them aren't very specific.

Personally, I think that transparency is a remedy for sickly democracy. People should know who is involved in the political process, particularly when organizations and their officers are authorized by the IRS to take tax-free donations in order to finance, as you see it, a limitless purpose. I happen to disagree with you on that, but intelligent people can choose for themselves.

[RedScare]

Weird thing about s3mk's argument is that Walmart is not a party to the 380 agreement, and is not being sued. But, she drags them into the argument anyway. Pretty much proves that this isn't about 380 agreements, but about hating Walmart...at least to members of RUDH.

BTW, I stopped by the Walmart on Katy Fwy Sunday. Nice clean store. I'm sure the one on Yale will be just as nice.

[J008]

WalMart isn't the biggest corporation in the US.

by revenue they are #1

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/2255.html

[samagon]

Number 1, number 10, number last. It doesn't matter. The conditions for a 380 are actually very simple. I encourage anyone who thinks this suit is good to go read the actual legislation for 380.

There are no provisions in place that stop it being used for the number 1 grossing company. There is only 1 contingency, that is that the money must be used to benefit the community.

So let's forget how much Walmart rakes, shall we?

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[samagon]

link to 380:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.380.htm

won't quote the whole thing, cause it's long, but here's the pertinent part:

Sec. 380.001. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (a) The governing body of a municipality may establish and provide for the administration of one or more programs, including programs for making loans and grants of public money and providing personnel and services of the municipality, to promote state or local economic development and to stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality. For purposes of this subsection, a municipality includes an area that:

(1) has been annexed by the municipality for limited purposes; or

(2) is in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality.

( The governing body may:

(1) administer a program by the use of municipal personnel;

(2) contract with the federal government, the state, a political subdivision of the state, a nonprofit organization, or any other entity for the administration of a program; and

(3) accept contributions, gifts, or other resources to develop and administer a program.

© Any city along the Texas-Mexico border with a population of more than 500,000 may establish not-for-profit corporations and cooperative associations for the purpose of creating and developing an intermodal transportation hub to stimulate economic development. Such intermodal hub may also function as an international intermodal transportation center and may be colocated with or near local, state, or federal facilities and facilities of Mexico in order to fulfill its purpose.

[samagon]

You had your chance. I am still here and you are still wrong. The fact of the matter is that you concocted a strawman argument about RUDH in order to come up with an ad hominem attack when you had nothing of value to contribute about the merits of the lawsuit.

1. the lawsuit has no merit.

2. his supposed 'strawman argument' is at least more intellectually sound than your arguments, at least he is basing his argument on fact, and not second hand gossip.

Instead of discussing whether the largest corporation in the US and a wealthy developer are legally entitled to take 6 mil in tax dollars to pad their profit margin, you chose to make a cowardly attack on people you do not know and completely crossed the line by suggesting that people go to their homes and tell them they are hypocrites for buying new or recent construction. It is an Ann Coulter-esque argument. It is not meant to discuss the merits of the issues, but to kick sand in people's eyes and get people made at you for doing it. It is what sells Ann Coulter's books and is what cripples our democracy from functioning.

1. can you provide proof of them 'padding their profit margin' or are you just gossiping? you know, lying about something like that, and pretending it is fact, can be considered libel, or slander, I assume Walmart and ainbinder don't care enough about your voice to take you to task for it.

2. there is no clause in the chapter 380 (as I referenced above) that stipulates the worth of a company before deciding whether the money would/could be used "to promote state or local economic development and to stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality."

3. please provide a link to where anyone here (but mainly TheNiche) told people to harass members of RUDH for being hypocrites?

4. Go back and review post 1684, 1704, and 1740 NO WHERE in that post does TheNiche suggest what you have said that he did. He does say that Chris Athens should be 'made aware' but that's it. that you construed it to mean people should start knocking on (or down) his door, that's you own fault.

And the mission statement is broad in order to allow the organization to chart its own course without having to go back and have a special board meeting to amend the mission statement. RUDH has clearly charted a course and has pages and pages of statements about urban development on their website.

This is my favorite!!!

Have you even been to the iRUDH website yourself??? Based on your account of what is contained on the site, I really don't think so. I will say you are 100% accurate, the have "charted their course" alright!!!!.

The ONLY initiative on the website is to stop walmart (and recruit people who will join them in this doomed fiasco)! The ONLY news updates are the efforts that iRUDH has taken to stop the walmart! There are two paragraphs of data on the home page, one references very vaguely how people and business owners who MAY be affected by 'area developments' should join them, and the other is about 'supercenters'

So, after SCOURING the iRUDH website, it is VERY CLEAR that their mission is very single minded and focused like a magnifying glass on an ant, and that they are specifically in business to stop the walmart, for whatever personal reasons they have, as their listed reasons of traffic and safety issues are unfounded, just as their lawsuit will be.

You ignore all of it and chart a course for them based on your subjective interpretation of a broad mission statement in order to have your little Ann Coulter moment. But you have never had anything to say on the merits. You just call concerned citizens snobs and attack and try to intimidate people for having the guts to stand up against powerful interests based on a phony argument. It is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

He ignores nothing, cause you bald-faced lied and the information you said exists DOES NOT EXIST. What alternate universe are you living in??!!!

Edited November 16, 2011 by samagon

[J008]

Number 1, number 10, number last. It doesn't matter.

It does matter.

City resources are limited. Diverting resources that would otherwise go to the city's general needs for the benefit of an entity that is arguably over capitalized is wasteful.

[Ross]

by revenue they are #1

http://money.cnn.com...shots/2255.html

Using revenues alone as a measure of corporate size is utterly without merit, and one reason I've always thought the Fortune numbers were useless. Any reasonable method has ExxonMobil at the top. More profits, more shareholder's equity, more value in the market, etc.

[RedScare]

It does matter.

City resources are limited. Diverting resources that would otherwise go to the city's general needs for the benefit of an entity that is arguably over capitalized is wasteful.

I agree that it does matter. And, given the fact that heretofore, Walmart's ringed the City without being located within it, the million of dollars the City would realize from property and sales taxes were going uncollected. Incentivizing Walmart to locate within city limits is good government, despite the short-sighted opposition's claims. None of this wailing and knashing of teeth will stop the 84% of Americans (and Houstonians) from shopping at Walmart. However, if Walmart remains outside city limits, those sales tax dollars will go only into county coffers. City taxes will not be collected at all. I, for one, like my tax burden spread around. If city residents patronize a Walmart within the city, as opposed to just outside of it, my tax burden...as well as RUDH members'...is reduced. That is a good thing.

RUDH has done absolutely nothing that benefits me. Their petty protests against the hillbilly Walmart only hurt city tax revenue, and prevent Yale and Heights from being repaved. Therefore, any publication of their hypocrisy and pettiness is welcomed. Misstatements of fact by s3mk also help, as it allows me and others to refute them publicly, again exposing the hypocrisy of s3mk and RUDH.

Keep posting. We'll keep shooting you down.

[samagon]

It does matter.

City resources are limited. Diverting resources that would otherwise go to the city's general needs for the benefit of an entity that is arguably over capitalized is wasteful.

In so much as it is something you care about, yeah, it matters.

In so much as it has any bearing on who can apply, and be approved for a 380 agreement, not so much.

Go read the Texas constitution link I posted to the 380 requirements, no where does it state a monetary requirement.

[J008]

In so much as it is something you care about, yeah, it matters.

In so much as it has any bearing on who can apply, and be approved for a 380 agreement, not so much.

Go read the Texas constitution link I posted to the 380 requirements, no where does it state a monetary requirement.

I would be suprised if cronyism isn't codified in there, this just being one of its manifestations.

[samagon]

I would be suprised if cronyism isn't codified in there, this just being one of its manifestations.

well, the 380, as it was amended to the constitution was approved by voters after it was approved in a 2/3rd majority of both the Texas house and senate. We can like it or not, but maybe those who voted yes on it when it was a proposition didn't see the eventuality of a major company that shouldn't need the assistance being offered the assistance (and finally taking the assistance when they were going to build anyway), hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but the fact is, it's the way it is now.

It's a great example of why it's important for each voter to not vote based on what someone tells them to do, but to read the proposition and think, what are the potential misuses of this? And then be truly and informed voter.

Make no mistake of it, I'm not happy they are using this tool in their disposal, but it's within the law the way it's being used.

[TheNiche]

I would be suprised if cronyism isn't codified in there, this just being one of its manifestations.

One of many. Don't get me started on the ease with which non-profit entities can be abused to line the pockets of their offi...oh, wait, never mind. Too late!

The abuse of well-intentioned federal and state financing laws is a cottage industry run amok. It only goes to show that the powers of government (and even of the people to give to will that the government should have more power) should be curtailed, audited, and made plainly transparent for the world to see.

[J008]

One of many. Don't get me started on the ease with which non-profit entities can be abused to line the pockets of their offi...oh, wait, never mind. Too late!

The abuse of well-intentioned federal and state financing laws is a cottage industry run amok. It only goes to show that the powers of government (and even of the people to give to will that the government should have more power) should be curtailed, audited, and made plainly transparent for the world to see.

completely agree

[JJxvi]

Why did this thread pop back up for no reason? I guess I'll give it a reason.

Edited January 3, 2012 by JJxvi

[J008]

Why did this thread pop back up for no reason? I guess I'll give it a reason.

Don't know? I saw my name next to it and wondered if my account had been tampered with. Looked at the entry and there was nothing there?

[20thStDad]

It's a poll. New votes bump it.

[samagon]

I should change my vote daily ;-)

on a related note, I haven't been off the freeway, but glanced over one day last week as I was a passenger on i-10, I saw some buildings being erected off of Yale. I can only assume these are part of the project?

as happy as I am that I will have a Walmart closer to my house in a better area than the current Walmart, I'm not so enthusiastic as to make a trip specifically for cruising around the build site.

[s3mh]

I saw some buildings being erected off of Yale. I can only assume these are part of the project?

They are not part of the Ainbinder/Walmart development. Orr Commercial owns the property and has put in a strip mall on the parcel between Yale and Heights south of Koehler/2nd. They also own the property south of that down to the rr tracks. Word is that they (Orr) plan an apartment complex for that plot.

[Northwood]

That remaining Orr tract would make for a good Trader Joes site.

[samagon]

That remaining Orr tract would make for a good Trader Joes site.

Well, if the complaints against Walmart are to be believed, it would be a horrible site. There's the condition of the bridge, the size of the roads, being in a residential neighborhood, etc. review contents of this thread for all the reasons the site should not be used for any large retail location.

But then, who knows, Trader Joe's isn't Walmart, so it's likely all the opposition to large retail would just melt away like snow on a warm afternoon...

Edited January 10, 2012 by samagon

[Texasota]

Eh, the thing is:

Trader Joe's is NOT Walmart.

Yes, they are likey to generate some traffic, but they're not on anything like the same scale. Most TJ's locations are quite small- 20,000 square feet is standard.

I have no idea how big the Heights Walmart will be, but it's safe to say it will be over 100,000 square feet.

And yes, people react differently to a grocery store than they do to Walmart. I'm sorry, but there are plenty of reasons to dislike Walmart that are unique to that particular corporation.

Everything from their treatment of employees to the unique unpleasantness (subjective of course) of their stores can provide additional ammunition for a reasonable person.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Texasota