Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[barracuda]

My conclusion you get a +1 for the Simpson's reference, and a -1 for the overall content of your post....which nets you nothing.

The Walmart, though I dont shop there, or support it, is here to stay, and I will support their right to build and to stand up to a bunch of pushy snobs who try to yell and scream to get their way every time someone tries to do something they don't like.

Thanks...I guess. People opposed to this project do themselves a disservice by making lots of crap up. But what I find even more amusing is that folks think the largest corporation in the world and it's dominion of attorneys needs their help in defending itself against these harmless NIMBYs, who have no legal recourse for stopping this project. But then again, I prefer to play the contrarian.

[samagon]

more on NPR...

http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_radio-news-display.php?articles_id=1284071470

I'm absolutely coming from the standpoint that this is a project that will happen anyway. The developer is very clear. They came to us saying they were going to do the project. They didn't come to us asking us for anything. We asked them, why not takeadvantage of their money, interest free, to do some things of benefit to the neighborhood and making this a win-win for everybody involved.

[RedScare]

I think I will make an Annise Parker quote my sig for a few days.

[Jesse]

I'm shocked... shocked!... that Walmart's 24 hour security patrol didn't catch this sooner. I'm sure their 0.001 megapixel security cameras caught the perp though.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7194544.html

[JJxvi]

Most people killed over drug deals probably get killed in the actual neighborhood in the Heights since we dont have a walmart yet...

[samagon]

I'm shocked... shocked!... that Walmart's 24 hour security patrol didn't catch this sooner. I'm sure their 0.001 megapixel security cameras caught the perp though.

http://www.chron.com...an/7194544.html

yeah, cause this only happens in walmart parking lots.

maybe you should focus your efforts at finding ways to improve the walmart, rather than outright disgust that it will be there, cause it's coming.

[Jesse]

yeah, cause this only happens in walmart parking lots.

maybe you should focus your efforts at finding ways to improve the walmart, rather than outright disgust that it will be there, cause it's coming.

I'd love to hear other examples of murders in parking lots that go unnoticed for several hours. Truly, I'd be interested.

Call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing that WM is going to listen to the neighborhood and what we'd prefer. What would I want? A storefront that's not visible from the road, shopping carts that lock up when they reach the property boundary, and a legitimate drainage plan so all the oil/trash/etc doesn't run into the bayou.

[DrLan34]

I got this e-mail today.

380 Agreement Details with developer Ainbinder about Koehler Street Development

During the second town hall meeting regarding the Koehler Street Development, also referred to as the possible Wal-Mart project, I promised to provide the 380 agreement as soon as it was ready to be considered by Houston City Council. In accordance with my pledge to residents for transparency during this process, the agreement has been posted on the City's Koehler Street Development Webpage at http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf. This agreement will be considered at the September 15, 2010, 9:00 a.m. meeting of Houston City Council.

From the start, my goal has been to have the developer build with traffic, drainage, noise and crime concerns in mind. Your feedback through e-mails, phone calls and both town hall meetings played a big role in the negotiations. However, it is important to note that neither I nor City Council are able to tell the developer which stores may be leased on this or any property. We can only ask that they pay attention to specific issues raised by the community and address them adequately.For further comments or concerns, contact Cecilia Ortiz in the Mayor's Citizens Assistance Office at cecilia.ortiz@houstontx.gov or call 832.393.0955.Sincerely,Annise Parker

[Houston19514]

I'd love to hear other examples of murders in parking lots that go unnoticed for several hours. Truly, I'd be interested.

This is where all the Wal-Mart haters lose credibility. They have so few actual facts that they resort to exaggerating and plain lying about the few innuendos they can scrounge up.

The article clearly states that the woman "went to the lot and sat in her car at about 10:30 PM" She was discovered "around midnight" and somehow, Jesse comes up with a "murder in [a] parking lot that [went] unnoticed for several hours. First, there is nothing in the article that suggests she was shot immediately upon entering her car. Second, even if she had been, 1 1/2 hours is not "several hours".

In spite of your sarcasm regarding Wal-Mart's "0.001 megapixel security cameras", it seems fairly obvious that Wal-Mart's cameras are almost certainly the reason the police have as much information about the crime as they do.

[RedScare]

I'd love to hear other examples of murders in parking lots that go unnoticed for several hours. Truly, I'd be interested.

Call me cynical...

OK, I will. Better yet, I'll call you disingenuous. You pick a likely drug deal gone bad in the most dangerous section of Houston at a late hour when business has slowed to virtually nothing, and expect security to be swarming the lot. You do not even know where in the lot the crime occurred. This isn't Walmart related. This murder could have happened in any lot, but the thugs picked this one to meet. Seriously, you people aren't even trying. Why should the mayor and council take you seriously when your claims are so easily shot down (pun intended)? The only thing worse than this anecdote are the traffic claims buttressed by a traffic study that shows less traffic than we thought.

Here's my suggestion. You likely do not park in the empty field at 10:30 at night and wait for thugs to get into your car now. I recommend not picking up that habit once the Walmart is built.

Then again, maybe you should. Considering that s3mh claims over 10,000 people per day will visit this parking lot, or 300,000 per month, or 3.6 million per year, the fact that only one murder occurs there makes the Walmart parking lot one of the safest places in Houston to sit in your car at night.

[RedScare]

Since you are so concerned about crime in big box parking lots, I invite you to peruse the HPD crime stats for Sawyer Heights Target and surrounding stores. You'll be delighted to know that they have dozens of auto thefts, burglaries, robberies and rapes monthly. I'll even help you do your research. Look for crimes in the following blocks and streets:

2400 to 2600 Crockett

2400 to 2600 Shearn

2300 to 2700 Spring

2300 to 2500 Alamo

2300 to 2500 Ovid

1900 to 2300 Taylor

1800 to 1900 Sawyer

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/cs/beatpages/cs2a40.htm

Enjoy.

[heights]

I got this e-mail today.

380 Agreement Details with developer Ainbinder about Koehler Street Development

During the second town hall meeting regarding the Koehler Street Development, also referred to as the possible Wal-Mart project, I promised to provide the 380 agreement as soon as it was ready to be considered by Houston City Council. In accordance with my pledge to residents for transparency during this process, the agreement has been posted on the City's Koehler Street Development Webpage at http://www.houstontx.../koehler380.pdf. This agreement will be considered at the September 15, 2010, 9:00 a.m. meeting of Houston City Council.

From the start, my goal has been to have the developer build with traffic, drainage, noise and crime concerns in mind. Your feedback through e-mails, phone calls and both town hall meetings played a big role in the negotiations. However, it is important to note that neither I nor City Council are able to tell the developer which stores may be leased on this or any property. We can only ask that they pay attention to specific issues raised by the community and address them adequately.For further comments or concerns, contact Cecilia Ortiz in the Mayor's Citizens Assistance Office at cecilia.ortiz@houstontx.gov or call 832.393.0955.Sincerely,Annise Parker

A few days back, I believe it was in the NPR story, the mayor stated that the money for the developments in the 380 agreement would be paid back to the developer without interest.

"We asked them, why not take advantage of their money, interest free, to do some things of benefit to the neighborhood and making this a win-win for everybody involved."

But if you read the 380 agreement, it shows that there will be an interest rate equal to what the developer pays for interest, or if the developer does not borrow the money then the interest rate will be prime+1%. Am I confused or is the mayor confused?? Also, I note that the 380 agreement shows the city paying for drainage/detention improvements on the developer's land which will remain the property of the developer.

Edited September 13, 2010 by heights

[Jesse]

This is where all the Wal-Mart haters lose credibility. They have so few actual facts that they resort to exaggerating and plain lying about the few innuendos they can scrounge up.

The article clearly states that the woman "went to the lot and sat in her car at about 10:30 PM" She was discovered "around midnight" and somehow, Jesse comes up with a "murder in [a] parking lot that [went] unnoticed for several hours. First, there is nothing in the article that suggests she was shot immediately upon entering her car. Second, even if she had been, 1 1/2 hours is not "several hours".

In spite of your sarcasm regarding Wal-Mart's "0.001 megapixel security cameras", it seems fairly obvious that Wal-Mart's cameras are almost certainly the reason the police have as much information about the crime as they do.

Ok, first of all, I thought we were past nitpicking word-for-word people's posts and being the grammar police. Guess not.

Second, when the article was first posted (Fri), there were no details about drugs, the lady sitting in her car alone, etc etc. It just said she was killed sometime between 10:30 and after midnight. That's all the information that was in the article.

OK, I will. Better yet, I'll call you disingenuous. You pick a likely drug deal gone bad in the most dangerous section of Houston at a late hour when business has slowed to virtually nothing, and expect security to be swarming the lot. You do not even know where in the lot the crime occurred. This isn't Walmart related. This murder could have happened in any lot, but the thugs picked this one to meet. Seriously, you people aren't even trying. Why should the mayor and council take you seriously when your claims are so easily shot down (pun intended)? The only thing worse than this anecdote are the traffic claims buttressed by a traffic study that shows less traffic than we thought.

Here's my suggestion. You likely do not park in the empty field at 10:30 at night and wait for thugs to get into your car now. I recommend not picking up that habit once the Walmart is built.

Then again, maybe you should. Considering that s3mh claims over 10,000 people per day will visit this parking lot, or 300,000 per month, or 3.6 million per year, the fact that only one murder occurs there makes the Walmart parking lot one of the safest places in Houston to sit in your car at night.

Again, see point #2 above. Disingenuous? No. Someone who regrets not copying and pasting the article into this thread, to avoid new details being added while I'm enjoying my weekend instead of arguing with Walmart lovers and defending my opinion time and time again ad infinitum? Yes.

Third, this IS Walmart related. If the crime happend in an HEB parking lot, and we had a giant several-hundred (ooh, there's that word "several" again - better get my calculator and make sure I've got my numbers right!) anti-HEB thread, I'd post it there. But it didn't and so I posted it here. You should relax a little bit - I posted an article with a bit of humorous commentary. I made no reference to this Walmart in particular, and also made no assumptions about a good or dangerous part of town (I wouldn't dare make such an assumption without personally experiencing it myself).

As a total side note, I do think it's always interesting to see the folks that do their shopping after 10:30pm at night, regardless of the store (Kroger, Walmart, etc). It really opens your eyes to the fact that the world does go on after dark. To say that business has slowed to "virtually nothing" would, in my opinion, not be accurate. But that's not worth arguing about.

shot down (pun intended) - cute :-)

Since you are so concerned about crime in big box parking lots, I invite you to peruse the HPD crime stats for Sawyer Heights Target and surrounding stores. You'll be delighted to know that they have dozens of auto thefts, burglaries, robberies and rapes monthly. I'll even help you do your research. Look for crimes in the following blocks and streets:

2400 to 2600 Crockett

2400 to 2600 Shearn

2300 to 2700 Spring

2300 to 2500 Alamo

2300 to 2500 Ovid

1900 to 2300 Taylor

1800 to 1900 Sawyer

http://www.houstontx...ages/cs2a40.htm

Enjoy.

Thank you, I will. And I mean that with all sincerity. Again, I said nothing about murders being specific to Walmarts (I think those words were put in my mouth, so-to-speak). I think all 24 hour big box stores likely draw more than their share of crime. I'd be arguing against any big-box store on that lot.

[TheNiche]

Second, when the article was first posted (Fri), there were no details about drugs, the lady sitting in her car alone, etc etc. It just said she was killed sometime between 10:30 and after midnight. That's all the information that was in the article.

So your defense is: ignorance. Wonderful. Is that criterion also tolerable as you form your opinion about other matters, or is it only tolerable when convenient?

Third, this IS Walmart related. If the crime happend in an HEB parking lot, and we had a giant several-hundred (ooh, there's that word "several" again - better get my calculator and make sure I've got my numbers right!) anti-HEB thread, I'd post it there. But it didn't and so I posted it here. You should relax a little bit - I posted an article with a bit of humorous commentary. I made no reference to this Walmart in particular, and also made no assumptions about a good or dangerous part of town (I wouldn't dare make such an assumption without personally experiencing it myself).

Oh, of course. You made no reference to this Wal-Mart by posting the link in a thread entitled 'Wal-Mart to invade the Heights' in the 'The Heights' subforum.

[Angostura]

Call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing that WM is going to listen to the neighborhood and what we'd prefer. What would I want? A storefront that's not visible from the road, shopping carts that lock up when they reach the property boundary, and a legitimate drainage plan so all the oil/trash/etc doesn't run into the bayou.

Can't speak to the shopping carts or the drainage, but from the renderings, it looks to me like the storefront will be virtually invisible from Yale St. I drive past this site pretty frequently, and between the contours surrounding the stone yard, and the underpass under the tracks, it's currently pretty hard to see deep into this property from the street, and that's without any landscaping. Between the pad sites and the landscaping, you'll have to look pretty hard to have your aesthetic sensibilities offended by the Walmart's storefront.

[RedScare]

As a total side note, I do think it's always interesting to see the folks that do their shopping after 10:30pm at night, regardless of the store (Kroger, Walmart, etc). It really opens your eyes to the fact that the world does go on after dark. To say that business has slowed to "virtually nothing" would, in my opinion, not be accurate. But that's not worth arguing about.

I think all 24 hour big box stores likely draw more than their share of crime. I'd be arguing against any big-box store on that lot.

As one who spent 2 years working graveyards, I think I know what I am talking about. And, since Walmarts were some of the few stores open, I did my share of shopping at them. I also spent some time shopping at the huge 24 hour Kroger that no one had a problem with. There are rarely more than a dozen or so shoppers in these stores late night. Those extra dozens of vehicles you see are the nightime staff re-stocking and cleaning the stores...and the security guard. Yes, every one of them had security.

But, don't worry. No one here is offended by the deliberate misinformation posted by those opposed to this store. I for one enjoy it it. I realize that if the only ammo the anti-Walmart forces have are deliberately misleading and unrelated anecdotes and traffic studies that prove there is less traffic than claimed, this store is getting built.

Edited September 13, 2010 by RedScare

[Jesse]

So your defense is: ignorance. Wonderful. Is that criterion also tolerable as you form your opinion about other matters, or is it only tolerable when convenient?

Oh come on now Niche, we both know that's a stretch. So any information someone posts here is immediately final and cannot be updated? By that logic, as we learn more about the upcoming store, we should be allowed to go back and call everyone in earlier posts 'ignorant'? Please.

Would it help you sleep better (live better, Walmart - look, another pun!) at night if I post an official retraction, saying that the information I posted was only accurate when I posted it, and any updated news and information could cause subsequent posts to be deemed ignorant?

You should try and become a mod here... I bet you'd have a full time job finding posts where new info had come to light, and could then reply that people were being ignorant because they couldn't predict the future! Huzzah!

Seriously, take a deep breath. I posted an article from a 3rd party about a crime that happened at Walmart. I didn't say "that's why this store shouldn't be built!". I made a joke about parking lot security, and the general state of security camera resolution. New information then came to light. People ripped apart my post word for word (how friendly!). I came back and admitted that my comments were based on the information available at the time. Suddenly I'm claiming ignorance and all of my statements should be taken with a grain of salt because I clearly can back out of any argument simply by saying "I dunno sir, I guess I'm just a simple moron!" anytime I feel it convenient? Get a grip. I enjoy discussing this topic, and hearing the various sides of the argument. But when people pick fights simply to pick fights, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Jesse]

But, don't worry. No one here is offended by the deliberate misinformation posted by those opposed to this store. I for one enjoy it it. I realize that if the only ammo the anti-Walmart forces have are deliberately misleading and unrelated anecdotes and traffic studies that prove there is less traffic than claimed, this store is getting built.

What misinformation did I post? Did you see the earlier discussion about how when I posted the link, the article was different? Seriously, I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say this.

[TheNiche]

Would it help you sleep better at night if I post an official retraction, saying that the information I posted was only accurate when I posted it, and any updated news and information could cause subsequent posts to be deemed ignorant?

No. The information you posted was never accurate. ...or relevant, by your own earlier admission (because after all, you never mentioned that it applied to this Wal-Mart).

[Jesse]

No. The information you posted was never accurate. ...or relevant, by your own earlier admission (because after all, you never mentioned that it applied to this Wal-Mart).

Jesus christ. How many times must we go in circles?

The information in the article was accurate when I posted it. That's it. However you want to read further into that is your own choice, but don't put words in my mouth or make me seem like i'm spreading lies, for god sakes. Do you want to talk about Walmart or do you want to get into semantics?

Fine, you want me to admit that the article didn't focus on this Walmart and doesn't belong in this thread? Fine. There you go. My mistake, your honor. Please retract your statement about crime at other big box stores then too, since it isn't directly about THIS Walmart. See how fun that is?

[s3mh]

Then again, maybe you should. Considering that s3mh claims over 10,000 people per day will visit this parking lot, or 300,000 per month, or 3.6 million per year, the fact that only one murder occurs there makes the Walmart parking lot one of the safest places in Houston to sit in your car at night.

10,000 car trips is the number established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 8th Edition. It is probably a low estimate because they actually think that a supercenter open 24 hours generates less traffic that one that is not 24 hours (logic behind that idea is not apparent).

So, while you all were busy calling each other names on the internet, the City put out a copy of the final version of the 380 agreement. (http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf)

Here is what the City represented that the agreement would be:

Interest free loan

Repayment tied to economic performance of development (i.e. developer bears risk of insufficient tax revenues generated to repay infrastructure improvements)

Agreement would require certain architecture, landscaping etc. on the development

Reimbursements would only be for public works projects done offsite. No money to be used to do any work on Ainbinder's land

Here is what we got:

Interest to be reimbursed at developer's cost, only capped by the Tex usury statute. If developer does not incur any financing costs (pays cash for improvements), then city still pays interest at prime + 1%.

City is obligation to reimburse is absolute. The agreement is structured so that the City actually has to purchase all of the improvements. In fact, the developer retains a security interest in the improvements until reimbursed in full. (That would be a wierd foreclosure auction: Yale St. from I-10 to Center Rd, opening bid 1.2 million). In short, no risk to the developer. The City is even required to issue bonds if needed to repay the developer. The tax abatement is only a repayment option.

Agreement on architecture is virtually non-existent. Developer only has to "endeavor" to build in style of the heights.

City is paying @300k for onsite drainage detention. That is right. The tax payers are paying to improve Walmart's drainage. Will City employees have to work as greeters?

And a few other nuggets: taxpayers pay for developer's legal fees and time spent preparing and negotiating the 380 agreement!

Also, the Developer has the discretion to decide whether to do any of the improvements (certain improvements are required if the developer builds to mitigate drainage and traffic impacts, but under the plain language, the developer could simply decide to blow off the so-called community improvements--jogging trail, bridge improvements, etc.).

And if you are keeping score, the community gets $366,000 in improvements (jogging trail/landscaping on Heights, Westside park, Yale and Heights bridge work) and the developer gets at least $308,000 for onsite stormwater detention (and probably another 10-15k for preparing and negotiating the 380 agreeement, if they used really cheap legal counsel).

So, for all this talk about how wonderful the 380 agreement is for the community, it turns out that as much money goes directly into private hands as goes to public improvements and there is really no guaranty that the development will be architecturally consistent with the Heights and no requirement for onsite landscaping, permeable pavement and a long list of other things that could have been easily included. Thus, it is clear that this agreement has nothing to do with getting the developer to do good things for the community. It is simply using the developer as a lender of last resort for infrastructure improvements that the City should have been prepared to fund. The developer said openly that he does not need it. The Mayor said on KUHF that the developer did not ask for it. It was the City's idea. But the City has very detailed ordinances on debt obligations. This 380 agreement is simply an end run around them. And it is a complete taxpayer giveaway. The City rolled over on this agreement in a big way.

[JJxvi]

Second, when the article was first posted (Fri), there were no details about drugs, the lady sitting in her car alone, etc etc. It just said she was killed sometime between 10:30 and after midnight. That's all the information that was in the article.

BTW the article had still not been changed to include any reference to drugs or any change beyond saying a woman was shot sitting in her car, when I posted my sarcastic comments about drug dealers being killed in our neighborhood not having a WalMart yet to get killed at. The incomplete article did not stop me from drawing the proper conclusions about that particular crime. Sure some people get randomly murdered for no reason, most people get murdered doing things they shouldnt be doing. I feel fairly confident that I, for example, would find it fairly difficult, and maybe even impossible, to get murdered in the parking lot of a big box store without breaking any laws myself.

[samagon]

Here is what the City represented that the agreement would be:

Interest free loan

I can honestly say that the only place I've heard of interest free loans was in this thread. never seen it being represented that way anywhere else.

this is from an article in the chron from aug 26th...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7172002.html

Parker stressed that the city's aid to the Washington Heights development is far more about creating leverage than providing taxpayer assistance to a mega-company like Wal-Mart.

Because Houston has no zoning, there are few tools at the city's disposal to wring concessions from developers.

"Our goal is to make sure that we get something from these developers that we would not otherwise get just as they go and do their own thing," she said. It's leverage. It's a tool to bring them to the table."

Ainbinder President Barton Duckworth said the company would build the project even if the 380 agreement is not approved, but it may not look the same.

"We couldn't afford to do all the neighborhood amenities," he said.

As far as the word endeavor, well, it means that they will try to, or attempt to achieve.

I assume if the city feels that they are not endeavoring enough, they will endeavor to show them what endeavor means.

Regardless the wording, this agreement is a way that the city can lean on the developer to build in the best interests of the community, rather than just building in their own interests.

[heights]

I can honestly say that the only place I've heard of interest free loans was in this thread. never seen it being represented that way anywhere else.

The mayor actually said "Interest Free" on KUHF. You can read the transcript or listen to it yourself by clicking the link below. I am a supporter of this Walmart, but even I feel that the proposed 380 agreement is bait-and-switch.

http://app1.kuhf.org...s_id=1284071470

Mayor Parker: "I'm absolutely coming from the standpoint that this is a project that will happen anyway. The developer is very clear. They came to us saying they were going to do the project. They didn't come to us asking us for anything. We asked them, why not take advantage of their money, interest free, to do some things of benefit to the neighborhood and making this a win-win for everybody involved."

Edited September 13, 2010 by heights

[samagon]

The mayor actually said "Interest Free" on KUHF. You can read the transcript or listen to it yourself by clicking the link below. I am a supporter of this Walmart, but even I feel that the proposed 380 agreement is bait-and-switch.

http://app1.kuhf.org...s_id=1284071470

Mayor Parker: "I'm absolutely coming from the standpoint that this is a project that will happen anyway. The developer is very clear. They came to us saying they were going to do the project. They didn't come to us asking us for anything. We asked them, why not take advantage of their money, interest free, to do some things of benefit to the neighborhood and making this a win-win for everybody involved."

ahhhh, now I understand the confusion!

Lets assume the developer has 20million to spend, and a penny over that, they'd have to get an additional loan.

so, if they were to do the project as they would want to, it would be 20 million out of their pocket.

if they do the project with the additions the city desires, it will cost 26 million, they need to get an additional 6 million in loans.

in effect, by entering this agreement, the city promises to pay them back for the additional improvements with interest, assuming they do the improvements. the developer gets an interest free loan. THAT is what has been said.

Edited September 13, 2010 by samagon

[s3mh]

I can honestly say that the only place I've heard of interest free loans was in this thread. never seen it being represented that way anywhere else.

this is from an article in the chron from aug 26th...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7172002.html

As far as the word endeavor, well, it means that they will try to, or attempt to achieve.

I assume if the city feels that they are not endeavoring enough, they will endeavor to show them what endeavor means.

Regardless the wording, this agreement is a way that the city can lean on the developer to build in the best interests of the community, rather than just building in their own interests.

contracts are very mechanical. If you say "developer shall . . . .", you get what you want. If you say "developer will endeavor", you get what the developer wants. It is the Jedi rule of contracts. Do or do not. There is no try.

This agreement is not the City leaning on the developer, it is the developer leaning on the City. The developer gets to build exactly what he wants to build. Show me one sentence in the 380 agreement that requires the developer to "build in the best interests of the community"?

There is no requirement in the agreement that the developer adhere to the plans presented to the public. All they are required to do is to build at least 75k sq ft with an anchor and "endeavor" to make it look good. 380 agreements from other jurisdictions routinely require the developer to build out as promised in submitted plans, commence building within a certain time frame, and bear the risk of insufficient tax increments.

And remember, the developer has stated publicly that he can do the development without the 380 agreement. The whole point of tax increment funding is to get developers to do projects they would not be willing to do without assistance. In this case, as the mayor said to KUHF, the City approached the developer about the 380 after the developer informed the City of its plans. This is just the City using the 380 agreement as a form of public financing without the strings attached (inconvenient strings, like voter apporoval).

[s3mh]

ahhhh, now I understand the confusion!

Lets assume the developer has 20million to spend, and a penny over that, they'd have to get an additional loan.

so, if they were to do the project as they would want to, it would be 20 million out of their pocket.

if they do the project with the additions the city desires, it will cost 26 million, they need to get an additional 6 million in loans.

in effect, by entering this agreement, the city promises to pay them back for the additional improvements with interest, assuming they do the improvements. the developer gets an interest free loan. THAT is what has been said.

Wow. Bill Clinton would be proud of that rationalization. The prolem is that the 380 obligates the City to pay interest even if the developer does not incur interest. The mayor clearly meant that there would be no reimbursement for interest. In her defense, it was probably an assumption on her part and not an intentional misrepresentation. However, she is out pushing this agreement in the media and should know what is in it.

And the 6 million mostly goes to improvements that the City will require to handle increased demands on roads and drainage. (Only about 366k goes to "desires"--jogging trail, bridge painting, etc.). In fact, the City really doesn't even know what will really be required. There is no traffic study yet. No one has a clue yet how to handle traffic signals and crosswalks. I would not be surprised to see this agreement go from 6 million to 8 million as more and more will be needed once the City figures out how to make this happen.

[samagon]

Wow. Bill Clinton would be proud of that rationalization. The prolem is that the 380 obligates the City to pay interest even if the developer does not incur interest. The mayor clearly meant that there would be no reimbursement for interest. In her defense, it was probably an assumption on her part and not an intentional misrepresentation. However, she is out pushing this agreement in the media and should know what is in it.

And the 6 million mostly goes to improvements that the City will require to handle increased demands on roads and drainage. (Only about 366k goes to "desires"--jogging trail, bridge painting, etc.). In fact, the City really doesn't even know what will really be required. There is no traffic study yet. No one has a clue yet how to handle traffic signals and crosswalks. I would not be surprised to see this agreement go from 6 million to 8 million as more and more will be needed once the City figures out how to make this happen.

I don't think either of us can know what the mayor 'clearly' meant.

You have your interpretation of the facts, I presented mine.

oh yeah, and you say that only 366k goes to desires, so now drainage, and roads aren't desired?

Edited September 13, 2010 by samagon

[TheNiche]

Jesus christ. How many times must we go in circles?

The information in the article was accurate when I posted it. That's it. However you want to read further into that is your own choice, but don't put words in my mouth or make me seem like i'm spreading lies, for god sakes. Do you want to talk about Walmart or do you want to get into semantics?

We will go in circles until you get it right! The information was never accurate.

Fine, you want me to admit that the article didn't focus on this Walmart and doesn't belong in this thread? Fine. There you go. My mistake, your honor. Please retract your statement about crime at other big box stores then too, since it isn't directly about THIS Walmart. See how fun that is?

I made no statement about crime at other big box stores. You have me confused with someone else. I retract nothing!

[s3mh]

oh yeah, and you say that only 366k goes to desires, so now drainage, and roads aren't desired?

Most of the road and drainage improvements are for the benefit of the development and Walmart (mostly). If they leave the drainage and roads as is, they would not be able to get the permits they want because the existing roadways cannot support the additional traffic. Thus, those improvements are to make it possible for Walmart and the developers to build, not to make the neighborhood nicer.