Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[JJxvi]

The ends justify the means.

[LegacyTree]

If only the opposition could have realized that a "no means no" approach to this development would yield them an almost reactionary suburban scale development that will mostly encourage more automotive activity in the area versus pedestrian activity. Had they channeled their energies into being constructive, the site planning might have been developed much differently than what has been presented in the renderings.

My first suggestion would be to NOT turn the store's "back" to the neighborhood. Neighborhood traffic is now guaranteed to increase behind the Wal-Mart in access to Washington Ave. and will be moving faster without any noticeable curb cuts. Also the extension of Bass St. to the feeder will also filter cross traffic into the neighborhood. Taking that fact into account, maybe the store could have backed up to the rail ROW and anchor deliveries to the southeast corner where the Yale underpass is. This would allow easier access for pedestrians in the neighborhood to the south, west, and east. In terms of greenness, an elongated East-West building of this scale has a better solar performance. Just a few passing thoughts...

Another off the cuff question regarding the site plan; Is there any way pedestrians from the north coming down Heights esplanade can access the esplanade in front of this development without having to enter the roadway on Yale or Heights Blvd at White Oak Bayou?

Edited August 27, 2010 by LegacyTree

[Angostura]

Given the way the ground is countoured in this area, especially around the stone yard, and the location of the pad sites, the Walmart will not be at all visually intrusive from Yale (if it's visible at all), at least during daylight hours.

I was also pretty happy to hear about the restoration of the bridge over the bayou on Heights. I'd love to see that bridge appropriately restored.

[JJxvi]

If the styling turns out remotely close to the renderings, this will be about as good as we could hope for as far as this development goes.

The problem is that this development doesn't hold its fate in its own hands visually. An entity called OTC Heights LTD owns most of the land where the Sons of Hermann used to be and the south end of that lot is owned by an entity named Boulevard Lofts LTD. Whatever gets put on those tracts (these are all on the Nebraska-ish shaped white area between Koehler, Yale, heights, and the RR ROW) will play a huge role in how that area ends up looking, much moreso than Ainbender, who hopefully will have made a solid run at setting expectations on design for that area.

On Ainbenders renderings those tracts are nice green lawn, but unfortunately they look nothing like that at the moment.

Edited August 27, 2010 by JJxvi

[Angostura]

Another off the cuff question regarding the site plan; Is there any way pedestrians from the north coming down Heights esplanade can access the esplanade in front of this development without having to enter the roadway on Yale or Heights Blvd at White Oak Bayou?

It's hard to say. Depends on two things:

1 - How the feeder road extension affects the stretch that goes under I-10

2 - How the improvements to the bridge over White Oak Bayou are executed.

Let's not overlook one of the advantages to Walmart being the anchor tenant: if HEB had been the anchor (something I would have preferred), it's unlikely that Ainbinder would have felt it necessary to any improvements at all to the Esplanade and the bridges.

[Angostura]

If the styling turns out remotely close to the renderings, this will be about as good as we could hope for as far as this development goes.

I'm inclined to agree with this. It looks a lot like parts of Uptown Park, parts of Highland Village, and the development on the SE corner of Kirby and Alabama (also Ainbinder, I think).

I think part of what people criticizing this as "typical suburban development" would rather see is multilevel parking. However, the cost of land in this part of the city doesn't really justify it. Surface parking typically takes up ~320 sf per parking space. Dirt in the Heights generally goes for around $30/sf, which puts the value of a surface parking space at around $9600. The cost per parking space of a multi-level garage is typically about 2X this amount. So, in order for multi-level parking to make sense economically, land costs would need to be about double what they are now. Outside of downtown, there are very few parts of the city where land costs >$60/sf.

The only shopping areas inside 610 with multi-level parking that immediately come to mind are Rice Village, parts of Highland Village, the new part of River Oaks S.C. (at Shepherd and W. Gray), and the Costco on Richmond @ Weslayan. I suppose you can add West Ave to this list if it ever opens (I assume some that not all of the parking is reserved for residents.) The new Whole Foods on Waugh, the existing W.F. on Alabama, and Central Market all have exclusively surface parking, and they haven't been criticized for it. Recall that the minimum number of parking spaces per s.f. of store space is dictated by CoH ordinance.

[J008]

Another off the cuff question regarding the site plan; Is there any way pedestrians from the north coming down Heights esplanade can access the esplanade in front of this development without having to enter the roadway on Yale or Heights Blvd at White Oak Bayou?

No. It appears the esplanade ends where the bayou begins and I haven't seen any plans to build a pedestrian bridge in the middle there to connect it to heights running trail. The running trail is real cute and everything but it doesn't really go anywhere or connect well with the north side, I-10 and the bayou pretty much kill any conventional chance of it right there and so you have to get in\or cross the street or just stay on the winding sidewalks they are to build.

[samagon]

Someone has been spotted in a white pickup truck taking Walmart signs. Many have reported having their signs stolen.

Someone told me that it's concerned neighbors from the Heights who feel that the signs are ugly and distract from the historic quality of their neighborhood

Edited August 27, 2010 by samagon

[JCR]

Someone told me that it's concerned neighbors from the Heights who feel that the signs are ugly and distract from the historic quality of their neighborhood

Heh.

[sevfiv]

2nd Public Meeting Regarding Koehler Street Development

Mayor Annise Parker cordially invites you to attend a 2nd public meeting regarding the Koehler Street Development

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

4701 Dickson Street

Auditorium

Houston, TX 77007

You are cordially invited to attend a 2nd public meeting regarding the Koehler Street Development, also referred to as the possible Walmart project. I want to provide residents another opportunity to ask questions and voice concerns about traffic, drainage, noise, crime and lighting issues. This meeting will focus solely on areas of the development that are under the city's control. Only city representatives will be present.

Free parking is available in the school parking lot located on Dickson Street.

For additional information, contact Cecilia Ortiz, Mayor's Citizens Assistance Office, at cecilia.ortiz@houstontx.gov or call 832.393.0955.

I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday, September 1 at the High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

Sincerely,

Annise Parker

[heights]

Someone has been spotted in a white pickup truck taking Walmart signs. Many have reported having their signs stolen.

City Ordinance prohibits the placement of any sign on City of Houston right-of-way without permission from the city. Any "bandit" sign placed in the right-of-way (generally between the sidewalk and the street) even in front of your own house, may be treated as litter and may be removed and disposed of by any citizen.

Edited August 27, 2010 by heights

[heights]

I was also pretty happy to hear about the restoration of the bridge over the bayou on Heights. I'd love to see that bridge appropriately restored.

Well, didn't they restore the Heights bridge with all the nice columns and lights about 10 years ago? Many of the lights were subsequently destroyed and are still in disrepair. I imagine the removal of the apartment complex right there may fix part of that problem though. <Wearing teflon suit to prevent damage from incoming flames for that comment>

Edited August 27, 2010 by heights

[Porchman]

2^nd Public Meeting Regarding Koehler Street Development

Mayor Annise Parker

Cordially invites you to attend

A 2nd public meeting regarding the Koehler Street Development

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

[There are students to manage you if you get you of hand. This is no United Way]

4701 Dickson Street

Auditorium

Houston, TX 77007

You are cordially invited to attend a 2^nd public meeting

[no teacakes promised]

regarding Kohler Street Development, also referred to as the possible Walmart project. I want to provide residents another opportunity to ask questions and voice concerns about traffic, drainage, noise, crime and lighting issues. This meeting will focus solely on areas of the development that are under the city´s control.

Only city representatives will be present. [shirt color optional].

Edited August 28, 2010 by Porchman

[Marksmu]

Someone has been spotted in a white pickup truck taking Walmart signs. Many have reported having their signs stolen.

I have spotted a white Prius placing anti Walmart signs in the yards of people who have the sign in opposition to the historical ordinance and then burning the opposition sign right there in the persons front yard....I swear, I think its the strangest thing...

Edit: just sighted again...Prius has an Obama Sticker AND a Bill White sticker on back bumper/window. Be on the look out!

Edited August 29, 2010 by Marksmu

[OutfieldDan]

I have spotted a white Prius placing anti Walmart signs in the yards of people who have the sign in opposition to the historical ordinance and then burning the opposition sign right there in the persons front yard....I swear, I think its the strangest thing...

Edit: just sighted again...Prius has an Obama Sticker AND a Bill White sticker on back bumper/window. Be on the look out!

There's been some minor mischief affecting blue signs near my home. Someone pulled one down at the business building on 20th at Harvard, and in front of an apartment building on Harvard someone keeps bending the sign over.

[Hartmann]

Did they happen to answer questions on how driving access to the Wal-Mart would be arranged? I know that Koehler was mentioned but will Yale be the main access point or are they going to build out Boerne?

My other thing is a bunch of talk I saw on the news about "pull the 380 money". My understanding is that without it the developer is not obligated for any infrastructure improvements, so why would anyone want them pull the money? Common sense says, if they are committed to putting in a Wal-Mart, don't we want them to improve the area? I mean, they even mentioned during the meeting that the Heights trail would be extended with the 380 money. That sounds good to me.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Hartmann

[s3mh]

Did they happen to answer questions on how driving access to the Wal-Mart would be arranged? I know that Koehler was mentioned but will Yale be the main access point or are they going to build out Boerne?

My other thing is a bunch of talk I saw on the news about "pull the 380 money". My understanding is that without it the developer is not obligated for any infrastructure improvements, so why would anyone want them pull the money? Common sense says, if they are committed to putting in a Wal-Mart, don't we want them to improve the area? I mean, they even mentioned during the meeting that the Heights trail would be extended with the 380 money. That sounds good to me.

Yale will be the main access point for the Walmart part of the development. CoH traffic people admitted that with the new feeder, Yale and Heights will be a mess, but did not say what they were prepared to do with the development to mitigate the traffic problems. The developer did not have many specifics on their traffic plan. It looks like they want to add lights at Koehler/Yale and Koehler(extension)/Heights and a dedicated left turn lane on the upper portion of Yale. Not sure whether that will make Yale 5 lanes, 6 lanes, or just 4 with the middle lane a turn lane by the development. Either way, the Koehler lights will be just barely 1/10th of a mile from the lights for the new I-10 frontage road. That would mean there is potential for the light at Yale and Koehler to back traffic up to the I-10 frontage road, causing grid lock. Or, put another way, how many times have you turned off of a 3 lane feeder road to only find another traffic light less than 1/10th of a mile away?

The City wants the 380 agreement so they can basically use Ainbinder to finance the improvements to Yale and Heights that will be needed after the frontage road expansion. But the 380 agreement will go way beyond that. It will pay for improvements to Koehler and Bass, drainage improvements that are mostly to offset the burdens of the development. The candy for the community is a very tiny percentage of the 6 million. A jogging trail is a one day project (dig out the path and fill with crushed granite). The bridge improvements are easy too. Fix up the light fixtures and clean up the cement railings. Oh, and when they are done, they expect the Heights Association to maintain the esplanade.

It is unclear what infrastructure improvements the developer will have to make absent the 380 agreement. Certainly, they will have to improve Bass and Koehler to handle truck traffic and drainage burdens. And they won't have to make Heights Blvd and the bridges pretty. But the reality is that the developer has said that they can do the project without the 380 agreement. That means that tax payers are giving the developer free money.

[poyea]

Or, put another way, how many times have you turned off of a 3 lane feeder road to only find another traffic light less than 1/10th of a mile away?

The area that pops into my head is the stretch of 59 around Buffalo Speedway and Weslayan, where you have Westpark that runs ~parallel...and yes, it can get quite bottled up along those intersections. I say let them pay for it themselves if it is such a great location. Let them figure out how to get their 18-wheelers down those skinny streets for deliveries. It would seem to me that those residents on those side streets would have the best chance at having a decent case against development. Of course, an HEB would also need access for deliveries too.

Side topic: Are there any Wal-Marts that are NOT open 24hr/day? Just curious.

[DrLan34]

http://www.houstontx.gov/pdf/KoehlerStreetDevelopment.pdf

info about the 2nd public meeting

The area that pops into my head is the stretch of 59 around Buffalo Speedway and Weslayan, where you have Westpark that runs ~parallel...and yes, it can get quite bottled up along those intersections. I say let them pay for it themselves if it is such a great location. Let them figure out how to get their 18-wheelers down those skinny streets for deliveries. It would seem to me that those residents on those side streets would have the best chance at having a decent case against development. Of course, an HEB would also need access for deliveries too.

Side topic: Are there any Wal-Marts that are NOT open 24hr/day? Just curious.

[Angostura]

It is unclear what infrastructure improvements the developer will have to make absent the 380 agreement. Certainly, they will have to improve Bass and Koehler to handle truck traffic and drainage burdens. And they won't have to make Heights Blvd and the bridges pretty. But the reality is that the developer has said that they can do the project without the 380 agreement. That means that tax payers are giving the developer free money.

Absent the 380 agreement, they'd most likely forego:

- Restoration of the bridges over the bayou on Heights and Yale

- Addition of turn lanes on Heights and Yale at Koehler and I-10

- Esplanade improvements

They'd also probably revert to absolute minimum on landscaping standards.

The advantage to the city of the 380 agreement is that it's the only leverage they have to influence certain parts of the development. For example, the city COULD deny the Koehler variance request, but all that would accomplish is to prevent Koehler from lining up with 2nd St at Heights. If the city wants changes like reduced lighting impact, increased landscaping, multi-level parking, or changes to the facade, the only mechanism they have is to use the 380 agreement as leverage.

[s3mh]

Absent the 380 agreement, they'd most likely forego:

- Restoration of the bridges over the bayou on Heights and Yale

- Addition of turn lanes on Heights and Yale at Koehler and I-10

- Esplanade improvements

They'd also probably revert to absolute minimum on landscaping standards.

The advantage to the city of the 380 agreement is that it's the only leverage they have to influence certain parts of the development. For example, the city COULD deny the Koehler variance request, but all that would accomplish is to prevent Koehler from lining up with 2nd St at Heights. If the city wants changes like reduced lighting impact, increased landscaping, multi-level parking, or changes to the facade, the only mechanism they have is to use the 380 agreement as leverage.

No one knows what the developer will have to do and won't have to do absent the 380 agreement because the City appears to be assuming it will pass City council. Turn lanes may be needed to keep TxDOT from getting pissed about interference with the feeder road (although I doubt it will help). Furthermore, I think the developer would do most of the improvements anyway. The improvements are really there to make the development more attractive. No one in their right mind is going to cross six lanes of feeder traffic to add an extra 1/2 mile to their morning run south of I-10. People in the Heights would rather a dirty old bridge than 20,000 additional cars on Yale (developer's numbers).

And what kind of message is this sending to developers? If you want to get free infrastructure improvements, just make sure you do something over-the-top to upset the community so the City will try to please everyone with a few extra trees and wider sidewalks? It is not a carrot, it is a free five course meal at Tony's with a bottle of 2005 Bordeaux for someone who is already a regular at Tony's.

As everyone knows on this board, when retail developments are done right, they develop a ton of cash for the developers. In fact, there are few endeavors in life that offer a greater rate of return than a retail development. So, there is absolutely no reason to provide retail developments with any assistance when they will make plenty of money and do not need the abatements (Ainbinder said he would build without the 380).

[Marksmu]

No one knows what the developer will have to do and won't have to do absent the 380 agreement because the City appears to be assuming it will pass City council. Turn lanes may be needed to keep TxDOT from getting pissed about interference with the feeder road (although I doubt it will help). Furthermore, I think the developer would do most of the improvements anyway. The improvements are really there to make the development more attractive. No one in their right mind is going to cross six lanes of feeder traffic to add an extra 1/2 mile to their morning run south of I-10. People in the Heights would rather a dirty old bridge than 20,000 additional cars on Yale (developer's numbers).

And what kind of message is this sending to developers? If you want to get free infrastructure improvements, just make sure you do something over-the-top to upset the community so the City will try to please everyone with a few extra trees and wider sidewalks? It is not a carrot, it is a free five course meal at Tony's with a bottle of 2005 Bordeaux for someone who is already a regular at Tony's.

As everyone knows on this board, when retail developments are done right, they develop a ton of cash for the developers. In fact, there are few endeavors in life that offer a greater rate of return than a retail development. So, there is absolutely no reason to provide retail developments with any assistance when they will make plenty of money and do not need the abatements (Ainbinder said he would build without the 380).

See here is the thing. Your just being stubborn and hardheaded now. If Ainbinder is going to build with or without the 380 agreement - why in the world do you oppose it? They are not necessarily going to do the improvements to the infrastructure without it because they just flat out are not required to make those improvements. They may have to add a turn lane...big deal, its not like they cant afford it. They dont have to make the building look nice, fix the bridge, add a bike bath, or plant lots of trees, or anything else that does not make them money directly which is seen by them as an accommodation to the people around it. The people who are going to shop there, are going to shop there regardless of what it looks like, so why in the world would you not work with them to get something attractive rather than get stuck with the ugliest most generic building possible?

You have already lost the battle over whether or not its going to get built...why lose the war too, and get the ugliest thing possible??

Another thing - everyone originally seemed to be attacking them because they are WalMart - but now all of your arguments seem to be based on the fact that the traffic, drainage, sewage capacity, infrastructure is insufficient. Weren't all these same problems still there if it was a whole foods, or a Central Market, or a HEB??? It just seems that everyone who opposes this is clutching at straws now - trying to find any reason they can to prevent it from being built....but every single argument that is being raised now that deals with infrastructure can be used to prevent the construction of the store of your dreams too....The thing is going to get built. You lost. Why not try now to make it the best possible store?

[s3mh]

See here is the thing. Your just being stubborn and hardheaded now. If Ainbinder is going to build with or without the 380 agreement - why in the world do you oppose it? They are not necessarily going to do the improvements to the infrastructure without it because they just flat out are not required to make those improvements. They may have to add a turn lane...big deal, its not like they cant afford it. They dont have to make the building look nice, fix the bridge, add a bike bath, or plant lots of trees, or anything else that does not make them money directly which is seen by them as an accommodation to the people around it. The people who are going to shop there, are going to shop there regardless of what it looks like, so why in the world would you not work with them to get something attractive rather than get stuck with the ugliest most generic building possible?

You have already lost the battle over whether or not its going to get built...why lose the war too, and get the ugliest thing possible??

Another thing - everyone originally seemed to be attacking them because they are WalMart - but now all of your arguments seem to be based on the fact that the traffic, drainage, sewage capacity, infrastructure is insufficient. Weren't all these same problems still there if it was a whole foods, or a Central Market, or a HEB??? It just seems that everyone who opposes this is clutching at straws now - trying to find any reason they can to prevent it from being built....but every single argument that is being raised now that deals with infrastructure can be used to prevent the construction of the store of your dreams too....The thing is going to get built. You lost. Why not try now to make it the best possible store?

Ainbinder doesn't have a single permit. In fact, it is still not clear whether TxDOT has approved the connection of Bass to the new frontage road. So, no battles have been lost. They are just beginning.

Making the development attractive to the public makes the developer money. An ugly FM 1960-esque development isn't going to attract the kind and quantity of retail that an attractive development with updated infrastructure would. Why should tax payers have to pay to make an area nicer for a developer when the developer can more than afford to do that himself? The position on the 380 agreement would be the same regardless of the anchor. In Austin, they have all but abandonned 380 agreements for retail after a voter initiative almost banned them. 380 agreements for retail developments are just wealth transfers to developers.

For Walmart, they need this store to bring in piles of customers to make it pay off. If word on the street is true, Walmart paid as much as 20x what it would pay for land to buy the 15 acres off Yale. Add to that the enviro remediation they need to do and this store is starting off with pretty huge sunk costs. If they drop the usual crappy suburban walmart, they will lose money bigtime. They will need to make this store very, very pretty to get people to skip past a very nice new Kroger and Wholefoods. They will do it with or without the 380 agreement because they have no choice.

Also, there is a huge difference between a 24 hour 152k sq ft supercenter and a 70k sq ft grocery store. There is no comparison in terms of traffic, crime, parking lot coverage, and truck traffic. It is the difference between 20k cars a day and 7k. It is the difference between a 600+ car parking lot and a 250 car parking lot. It is the difference between 3 police calls a day and three a month. And HEB doesn't just throw a different facade on their stores and plant a few rows of trees in response to community concerns. HEB has offered to do bi-level parking, allow space for a farmer's market and give up a portion of the property for a park at the proposed Montrose location. Walmart has paid lip service to the Heights and West End in comparison.

[barracuda]

See here is the thing. Your just being stubborn and hardheaded now. If Ainbinder is going to build with or without the 380 agreement - why in the world do you oppose it? They are not necessarily going to do the improvements to the infrastructure without it because they just flat out are not required to make those improvements. They may have to add a turn lane...big deal, its not like they cant afford it. They dont have to make the building look nice, fix the bridge, add a bike bath, or plant lots of trees, or anything else that does not make them money directly which is seen by them as an accommodation to the people around it. The people who are going to shop there, are going to shop there regardless of what it looks like, so why in the world would you not work with them to get something attractive rather than get stuck with the ugliest most generic building possible?

You have already lost the battle over whether or not its going to get built...why lose the war too, and get the ugliest thing possible??

I actually agree with you for once. This project is almost certainly going to be built, and regardless of what I and others think of Walmart, I'd rather see Ainbinder build with the 380 agreement and make the improvements than get stuck with an ugly and generic development. Opposing the 380 at this point seems akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. If Ainbinder actually builds according to the rendering, it is a significant improvement to the area and not the typical feeder-hugging big-box eyesore.

[RedScare]

I think it is pretty clear that the anti-Walmart crowd is being intentionally ignorant on the 380 issue in the hopes that others will believe their bs that the City is helping build the development. It has been explained several times that 380 money does not build on private land. It is for the developer to repave CITY streets and get reimbursed for it. Though s3mh continues to claim it is a tax subsidy for private development, I think he is intentionally ignoring the facts, hoping the uninformed will buy it.

If the 380 is not granted, the development will be built, and the crappy streets will remain as they are. It will actually make traffic worse. This has the effect of cutting off one's nose to spite his face. I'm fine with it either way, but I would get a perverse thrill pointing out to anti-Walmarters that complain about the traffic that it was their obstructionism that caused it.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Subdude
Personal attacks

[J008]

and the crappy streets will remain as they are.

I have tried driving down yale to find the really crappy part and it isn't great but it isn't memorably bad. The stretch on Shepherd heading north between memorial and Washington ( or all the way to I-10) is memorably bad and uneven and with at least 5x as much traffic. I know there are several other places in Houston with crappy roads but even in the near vicinity I am not sure Yale is the most needy. One day maybe the other roads will find a patron and then they can get basic services too!

[s3mh]

I think it is pretty clear that the anti-Walmart crowd is being intentionally ignorant on the 380 issue in the hopes that others will believe their bs that the City is helping build the development. I am just not quite willing to believe that s3mh is the stupidest poster ever on this forum. It has been explained several times that 380 money does not build on private land. It is for the developer to repave CITY streets and get reimbursed for it. Though s3mh continues to claim it is a tax subsidy for private development, I think he is intentionally ignoring the facts, hoping the uninformed will buy it.

If the 380 is not granted, the development will be built, and the crappy streets will remain as they are. It will actually make traffic worse. This has the effect of cutting off one's nose to spite his face. I'm fine with it either way, but I would get a perverse thrill pointing out to anti-Walmarters that complain about the traffic that it was their obstructionism that caused it.

Show me one sentence in any of my posts where I have said that 380 money will be used to build on private land? The fact of the matter is that you have no response to what I have said and have to make me say something I never said in order to sound like you are getting somewhere. I have candidly stated numerous times that the City is using the 380 agreement as a weird financing tool to get Yale and Heights improved to meet the increased traffic of the new frontage roads (an economically stupid tool if the developer is reimbursed for interest that is beyond what the City could get from muni bonds). But, you don't understand that this is potentially a terrible deal for the public because you just sit on message boards and try to bully people who don't agree with you instead of going out and finding out what is really going on. The 380 agreement doesn't just cover streets, it covers drainage imrpovements. Those drainage improvements are not just needed because they are improving streets. It is mostly needed because they are paving over @20 acres of land for the development (there is also 380 money going to improving the grading on White Oak Bayou so the portion of the development between Yale and Heights doesn't flood). So, the 380 agreement is not going to pay to build the Walmart, but it is going to pay for the drainage improvements the development requires.

The improvements to Yale will happen when the City can afford to do them on its own terms and not because a developer wants it done now. The fact of the matter is that the developer has no choice but to do the Yale improvements because if they wait for the City to do it, they will end up losing road access during construction on Yale. That is economic suicide for a new development. Ainbinder and Walmart have plenty of cash to do all 6 million in improvements and then some. They do not need taxpayer money. This is the very first time a developer has recieved a tax abatement to do infrastructure improvements outside of a TIRZ in the City of Houston. Piles of retail developments have been profitably built (including Ainbinder's RO shopping center) while paying for infrastructure improvements without tagging tax payers.

Right now, the City is apparently offering 20 million to do infrastructure improvements in gated communities for InTown Homes. These are just giveaways. Tax abatements are supposed to be used to encourage economic development in areas that are in desparate need for development. Tax abatements are not supposed to be given out as freebees to keep developers from wrecking neighborhoods. Say what you want about anti-Walmart sentiment, but if you can't understand the 380 agreement issue, there is no hope for you.

[JCR]

I have tried driving down yale to find the really crappy part and it isn't great but it isn't memorably bad. The stretch on Shepherd heading north between memorial and Washington ( or all the way to I-10) is memorably bad and uneven and with at least 5x as much traffic. I know there are several other places in Houston with crappy roads but even in the near vicinity I am not sure Yale is the most needy. One day maybe the other roads will find a patron and then they can get basic services too!

Get on Yale going south in the right lane. From White Oak to around Washington it sucks. The northbound half is in better shape.

[RedScare]

I have candidly stated numerous times....

No, you really haven't been candid at all on this subject. Sorry.

Right now, the City is apparently offering 20 million to do infrastructure improvements in gated communities for InTown Homes. These are just giveaways. Tax abatements are supposed to be used to encourage economic development in areas that are in desparate need for development. Tax abatements are not supposed to be given out as freebees to keep developers from wrecking neighborhoods. Say what you want about anti-Walmart sentiment, but if you can't understand the 380 agreement issue, there is no hope for you.

This is a good example of your lack of candor. InTown Homes has nothing to do with Walmart.

I agree that there is no hope for me. As little of a fan of Walmart as I am, there is no hope whatsoever that I will make up things in an attempt to keep them from building on Yale. I thoroughly understand the law of unintended consequences. Therefore, I realize that if I convince government officials to violate the rights of a corporation simply because I do not care for them, there is nothing to stop that same government from violating my rights simply because someone does not care for me.

You strike me as rather young. You also do not appear to be much of a student of the Constitution and of fairness. Not that you should be ashamed. There are many who feel as you do. Too many, in fact. My only wish is that you and your anti-Walmart friends would channel your energies into something worthwhile, as opposed to fighting a Walmart proposed on an industrial site. In a world where tens of millions are homeless in Pakistan, we are still stuck in 2 wars, the economy is going back into recession, and Jimmy Johnson is about to be on Survivor, few could care less whether a Walmart is built on Yale. As for me, add up the sum total of my post on this thread. That is the grand total of time I have spent on this subject...unless you count the times I have laughed with my friends and neighbors about how seriously some take this.

[Angostura]

Also, there is a huge difference between a 24 hour 152k sq ft supercenter and a 70k sq ft grocery store. There is no comparison in terms of traffic, crime, parking lot coverage, and truck traffic. It is the difference between 20k cars a day and 7k. It is the difference between a 600+ car parking lot and a 250 car parking lot.

What dictates the size of the parking lot isn't the size of the anchor, it's the size of the development. CoH requires a certain number of parking spaces per s.f. of residential space. So whether the breakdown is one 150k s.f. store, or a mix of 70k, 30k, 20k, 20k and 10k, the size of the parking lot will be the same. The only way multi-level parking will be built on this space is if the return on additional retail space is higher than the cost of building a parking structure. Currently, in this part of town, it isn't. (There are two retail developments on White Oak, one at Heights and one at Oxford, that are basically empty, and have been for some time.) No matter what goes into this development, there will be ~700 surface parking spaces.