Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[IronTiger]

Does anyone have a PDF of the plan?

Also, it's technically in West End, not the Heights.

[s3mh]

Does anyone have a PDF of the plan?

Also, it's technically in West End, not the Heights.

p. 33: http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf

Or go to http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/

And thanks for pointing out that it is in the West End and not the Heights. I guess you will be opposed to the Walmart because of the traffic that will end up on 18' wide residential streets in the West End like Koehler. Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood. But I will be glad to hear some people stand up for the West End.

[TheNiche]

p. 33: http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf

Or go to http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/

And thanks for pointing out that it is in the West End and not the Heights. I guess you will be opposed to the Walmart because of the traffic that will end up on 18' wide residential streets in the West End like Koehler. Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood. But I will be glad to hear some people stand up for the West End.

Is this what it has come to? Do you have to promulgate a bald-faced lie to make your arguments hold water?

According to page 34 of the pdf version of the 380 Agreement (the page right after the site plan), Koehler, Bonner, and Bass streets all get reconstructed as 44-foot-wide, 27-foot-wide, and 27-foot-wide roadways, respectively. Water, sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage capacity will also be added.

[s3mh]

Is this what it has come to? Do you have to promulgate a bald-faced lie to make your arguments hold water?

According to page 34 of the pdf version of the 380 Agreement (the page right after the site plan), Koehler, Bonner, and Bass streets all get reconstructed as 44-foot-wide, 27-foot-wide, and 27-foot-wide roadways, respectively. Water, sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage capacity will also be added.

It is only a bald face lie to someone who doesn't take the time to actually educate himself on what the agreement actually says. Koehler gets widened only up to Bonner on the western edge of the development (http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html). Then it goes right back to an 18' road with the same old drainage ditches through the residential neighborhood (last I checked 1150 feet was just enough pavement to get from Heights to Bonner--for those of us who actually pay attention to details). Anyone exiting the development who sees a long line of traffic at the Koehler/Yale intersection will turn left on Koehler to cut through to Shepherd or Patterson. As soon as they pass Bonner, they will be on an 18' wide road. There was talk with residents about widening Koehler all the way to Shepherd. But, Mr. Icken apparently doesn't think too highly of people in the area. So, it never got included in the 380 agreement. Thus, the rule in Houston is that big developers and multinational corporations get infrastructure improvements when they want it and on the taxpayers dime (even if they state publicly that they can afford to pay for it and would pay for it if necessary) and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

[RedScare]

...and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

Hell must have frozen over, because the City is repaving 11st Street (including new drainage) for me as we speak. They were also kind enough to repave N. Main, Studewood, Courtlandt, and other streets in my neighborhood. They also put in new water mains a few years back, giving me fantastic water pressure at the tap.

You should have moved into my hood. They take care of us.

[s3mh]

Hell must have frozen over, because the City is repaving 11st Street (including new drainage) for me as we speak. They were also kind enough to repave N. Main, Studewood, Courtlandt, and other streets in my neighborhood. They also put in new water mains a few years back, giving me fantastic water pressure at the tap.

You should have moved into my hood. They take care of us.

So, when will they widen Koehler all the way to Shepherd? The City said they did not have any room in the budget for the next five years to improve Yale or Heights (which is interesting because they did have money to do 11th--maybe the whole 380 agreement is just the City's CYA for its poor planning). So, it will be a minimum of 5 years. But by then, the City will start losing tax revenue from 380 agreements like the one for Walmart (the agreement, despite what the uninformed say, is not an increment reimbursement--it is a hand over of ALL ad valorem taxes). So, maybe Koehler residents will have to wait another 7-8 years for the tax reimbursement to run its course. It will still be rather warm in hell by that time, so it looks like I may have a point.

[samagon]

It is only a bald face lie to someone who doesn't take the time to actually educate himself on what the agreement actually says. Koehler gets widened only up to Bonner on the western edge of the development (http://www.washingto...blic_infra.html). Then it goes right back to an 18' road with the same old drainage ditches through the residential neighborhood (last I checked 1150 feet was just enough pavement to get from Heights to Bonner--for those of us who actually pay attention to details). Anyone exiting the development who sees a long line of traffic at the Koehler/Yale intersection will turn left on Koehler to cut through to Shepherd or Patterson. As soon as they pass Bonner, they will be on an 18' wide road. There was talk with residents about widening Koehler all the way to Shepherd. But, Mr. Icken apparently doesn't think too highly of people in the area. So, it never got included in the 380 agreement. Thus, the rule in Houston is that big developers and multinational corporations get infrastructure improvements when they want it and on the taxpayers dime (even if they state publicly that they can afford to pay for it and would pay for it if necessary) and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over.

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

I can think of countless retail developments that directly border residential developments, and guess what, they've all got the same thing, the street is bigger by the retail, but then goes back down to a residential street in the residential area.

This is done to make people feel less inclined to drive through residential areas, and direct people to go on the streets they are wanted on. Hell, in some cases, the city has blocked off certain streets from accessing certain roads to keep people from using residential streets as through streets.

To see some examples of what you fear in action, you only need to head over towards San Filipe and Sage. South of SF, Sage is 2 lanes in each direction, north of SF, Sage is 1 lane in each direction. People going northerly towards Memorial, or Woodway can and do travel down Sage, but it's much better if you use SF and go to chimney rock, or the loop.

Go over to W. Gray and Shepherd and you can see W. Gray turn into Inwood, which even though Inwood is a residential street, people use it as a through street all the time to get over to Kirby. and Inwood is a 1 lane in each direction kind of street, where W.Gray is a 2 lanes in each direction, with a suicide down the middle!

Go over to Memorial City Mall, Barryknoll across Gessner, 4 lane, drops to 2 lane residential that people use all the time.

Hit up Bunker Hill, north of Barryknoll it is 4 lane, south it drops to 2 lane with a suicide in the middle.

Hell, you don't even have to leave the Heights for this next one! Travel east down 11th street from Heights, pass by all of the shops and retail shops, and instead of using Studewood to get over to I-10 (of which there is no entrance to I-10 east from Studewood/Studemont) keep going, it turns into a street called Pecore, where the street drops from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane in each direction, and is absolutely a residential street!

I could go on for DAYS proving that what you are showing is being done all over this city already and is completely a normal practice that is not refutable or in any way a burden to the surrounding neighbors that live on those streets, but my lunch hour is over, and this Friday sure does feel like a Monday

[s3mh]

I could go on for DAYS proving that what you are showing is being done all over this city already and is completely a normal practice that is not refutable or in any way a burden to the surrounding neighbors that live on those streets, but my lunch hour is over, and this Friday sure does feel like a Monday

You are right. You could go on for days, but you would never find an example with a Walmart Supercenter.

[20thStDad]

You are right. You could go on for days, but you would never find an example with a Walmart Supercenter.

Why stop there with the pointless retort, just say he'll never find an example with a Walmart Supercenter in the west end. It doesn't matter whether the example is Walmart or not, do you assume the city should have Walmart-specific policies, or do what they are doing and treat it the same as other developments around town?

[samagon]

You are right. You could go on for days, but you would never find an example with a Walmart Supercenter.

A. whether it is walmart or another retailer DOESN'T MATTER. You know, the city cannot hold Walmart to different standards than other retail developments in the city, as that's certainly illegal. So it would be best if you don't try to hold Walmart to a different standard than what the city can either. Everyone's equal, but Walmart is less equal, amirite?

B. what's interesting is that I specifically left other Walmart locations out of the mix...

Check Walmart on Westheimer/Kirkwood, Walmart on 288/Broadway

Both of these have adjacent streets that feed the Walmart parking lot, and after the Walmart they trim down in size.

additionally....

I'm not usually one to give people advice in the middle of a competition, be that competition a sport, video game, or online debate, but....

It's always good to check whether or not what you are about to say is a factual statement or not. All it does when you make a statement such as the one quoted, is show that you don't do any kind of research before saying anything which you present as fact. That does nothing to embolden people to your cause, and certainly if you were to take such a statement to the CoH as reason for a retail development to not be placed on the site, it wouldn't do much for your cause either.

Edited October 15, 2010 by samagon

[RedScare]

...so it looks like I may have a point.

Actually, you do not, but you have never had a point to your posts on this subject, other than the point that because you do not like Walmart, the City should illegally refuse them the right to build there. Luckily, the City elected officals are intelligent enough not to create unwinnable lawsuits for taxpayers.

On the subject of taxpayers,Walmart is a city taxpayer. In fact, their taxes dwarf the pittance that you pay to the City. Since you believe that the city should provide infrastructure for their taxpayers, it is only fair that they should also build infrastructure for their biggest taxpayers.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the 10,000 vehicles per day that you claim will visit this Walmart are ALSO taxpayers? We deserve infrastructure, too. You selfishly believe that only you are entitled to new infrastructure. The rest of us pay taxes, too, and I'll bet my taxes are higher than yours.

Thanks to the City for improving my streets.

[s3mh]

Actually, you do not, but you have never had a point to your posts on this subject, other than the point that because you do not like Walmart, the City should illegally refuse them the right to build there. Luckily, the City elected officals are intelligent enough not to create unwinnable lawsuits for taxpayers.

On the subject of taxpayers,Walmart is a city taxpayer. In fact, their taxes dwarf the pittance that you pay to the City. Since you believe that the city should provide infrastructure for their taxpayers, it is only fair that they should also build infrastructure for their biggest taxpayers.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the 10,000 vehicles per day that you claim will visit this Walmart are ALSO taxpayers? We deserve infrastructure, too. You selfishly believe that only you are entitled to new infrastructure. The rest of us pay taxes, too, and I'll bet my taxes are higher than yours.

Thanks to the City for improving my streets.

I am saying that Walmart should (and could) pay its own way instead of getting to jump to the front of the line via the 380 agreement. Walmart pays more taxes than I do, but uses waaayyyyy more in public resources than I do. Walmart needs police a zillion times more than I do. Walmart pays employees so little that many make claims for public assistance. Walmart uses more water and sewage treatment than I do. So, they may pay more taxes, but they use way more in terms of resources. Thus, they do not deserve any special treatment just because they are big. And that is my point. The City has decided to make improvements a priority for an out of state multinational company that will simply suck dollars from Houston and spit them out in Arkansas while local businesses struggle mightily to stay open while public infrastructure crumbles around them. When will the City fix 19th street? When you try to park on the street, your car dives into a deep ditch in front of the stores. It has been like that for over a decade. Yet, Walmart shows up and instantly gets public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars (not just the increment, but ALL of the ad valorem taxes) when it was ready and willing to pay for the infrastructure. In fact, by handing all of the ad valorem taxes back to the developer, Walmart is actually taking money out of existing budgets. Thus, Walmart isn't paying its own way and everyone else is.

[Ross]

WalMart is paying its way. Absent the agreement, the store would still be built but the streets would still suck. The City isn't handing WalMart any cash, and there won't be any real impact on City revenues. The City gets infrastructure now, with no cash out the door, and Walmart gets to pay up front for the improvements. How is that gicing money to WalMart?

There's nothing wrong with 19th Street. I've never had any problems parking there, and I'm on that street all the time.

[Marksmu]

I am saying that Walmart should (and could) pay its own way instead of getting to jump to the front of the line via the 380 agreement. Walmart pays more taxes than I do, but uses waaayyyyy more in public resources than I do. Walmart needs police a zillion times more than I do. Walmart pays employees so little that many make claims for public assistance. Walmart uses more water and sewage treatment than I do. So, they may pay more taxes, but they use way more in terms of resources. Thus, they do not deserve any special treatment just because they are big. And that is my point. The City has decided to make improvements a priority for an out of state multinational company that will simply suck dollars from Houston and spit them out in Arkansas while local businesses struggle mightily to stay open while public infrastructure crumbles around them. When will the City fix 19th street? When you try to park on the street, your car dives into a deep ditch in front of the stores. It has been like that for over a decade. Yet, Walmart shows up and instantly gets public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars (not just the increment, but ALL of the ad valorem taxes) when it was ready and willing to pay for the infrastructure. In fact, by handing all of the ad valorem taxes back to the developer, Walmart is actually taking money out of existing budgets. Thus, Walmart isn't paying its own way and everyone else is.

WalMart uses more resources...lets analyze that thought for as second.

Crime - You first complain about police....but a criminal is going to do his criminal act regardless of the name of the store....if your assumption that WalMart brings crime to the area is true (big assumption), then it would actually decrease the necessary police resources because they would be able to put fewer officers in a smaller area and actually catch more criminals. Thus reducing necessary police resources as a whole.

Walmart Pays employees too little - well last I checked, a little is more than nothing - so the amount of my tax dollars these employees are receiving is less, than if they were doing nothing like so many others who think they are too good to work at walmart and just take a check.

Water & sewage, usage - WalMart has almost no use for water other than toilets/sinks/landscaping. If you were to take a bathroom break at WalMart and flush the toilet, the same amount of water is entering the sewer system as if you did it at your house, its just being done in one place rather than another. WalMart does not draw new residents to Houston to use the bathroom, so the utilities argument is really more of a non-argument. If they were a water park, pumping millions of gallons, then yea, I would agree with you - but they are not...their predominant use of water is their toilets, and people are going to use the restroom the same number of times in a day, regardless of whether they are at a walmart, a whole foods, or their own home.

Streets - If the shoppers need to buy their goods somewhere else, they will likely utilize streets to get there. Thus, the same argument can be made - the streets around WalMart may get heavier use, but that will alleviate traffic in other areas, thus the money spent up-keeping a small area around a WalMart is probably money better spent than having to go all over the place fixing lots of little problems. Its economics of scale really - its always cheaper to do big projects in one place, than to do smaller projects in lots of places.

Finally - 19th may need repair, but nobody has stepped up and said "you know what? I think if I fixed this street up I would get more business"...then ponied the cash up front, interest free to do the job themselves, on the promise that tax dollars in the FUTURE (presumably brought in by the store doing the work) would pay them back. The city did not give WalMart the money to fix the streets, the City wanted the streets fixed, WalMart wants the streets fixed, WalMart says - we will pay for it now, but you have to pay us back over time...interest free. Its actually a good deal for the city.

I tell you what, I will fix 19th for you and only you! You give me the money now to do it, and I will get it done, and pay you back later...interest free of course. Its a good deal - especially since you seem to have a problem keeping your car out of ditches.

Although, on second thought, I believe that ditch in front of the stores on 19th is actually considered "historic" now so we are prohibited by law from re-working them. Your just going to have to deal with the repercussions of your poor choices.

[kylejack]

Walmart Pays employees too little - well last I checked, a little is more than nothing - so the amount of my tax dollars these employees are receiving is less, than if they were doing nothing like so many others who think they are too good to work at walmart and just take a check.

But is Walmart generating jobs or is it replacing better jobs? Also, not everyone qualifies for a welfare check.

[samagon]

But is Walmart generating jobs or is it replacing better jobs? Also, not everyone qualifies for a welfare check.

I don't know that this can be answered without a doubt either way. In a city the size of Houston there's a host of variables at play.

[IronTiger]

p. 33: http://www.houstontx.../koehler380.pdf

Or go to http://www.washingto...tsdistrict.com/

And thanks for pointing out that it is in the West End and not the Heights. I guess you will be opposed to the Walmart because of the traffic that will end up on 18' wide residential streets in the West End like Koehler. Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood. But I will be glad to hear some people stand up for the West End.

Nope, don't live in the Heights, sorry. I was doing a college paper that involved Wal-Mart, and one of my sources was a Lisa Falkenberg column about how the Wal-Mart will be good for the area. In it, she points out that although it's controversial, and jokingly(?) mentioned she might get banned from her favorites Heights coffeehouse, but the residents of West End are much poorer than the Heights, don't really go to the same shops as the Heights, and technically isn't even in the Heights.

Doesn't the Heights end at I-10?

[20thStDad]

Nope, don't live in the Heights, sorry. I was doing a college paper that involved Wal-Mart, and one of my sources was a Lisa Falkenberg column about how the Wal-Mart will be good for the area. In it, she points out that although it's controversial, and jokingly(?) mentioned she might get banned from her favorites Heights coffeehouse, but the residents of West End are much poorer than the Heights, don't really go to the same shops as the Heights, and technically isn't even in the Heights.

Doesn't the Heights end at I-10?

These days, yes it pretty much does. There aren't any remnants of the original neighborhood south of I-10, but the original did extend about to Washington. Not all of this development would be within the original boundaries.

For as democrat and free-will as my hood seems to be, there sure is a lot of NIMBY going on. I'm not sure I'm a Heights lifer. People just get too worked up over things that really don't matter.

[Marksmu]

These days, yes it pretty much does. There aren't any remnants of the original neighborhood south of I-10, but the original did extend about to Washington. Not all of this development would be within the original boundaries.

For as democrat and free-will as my hood seems to be, there sure is a lot of NIMBY going on. I'm not sure I'm a Heights lifer. People just get too worked up over things that really don't matter.

While I agree with you, there is a whole lot of NIMBY in this area - I think you will find that it does not matter where you go everyone will have something to complain about. Though there is more complaining here, but I have come to expect that from an area that has a reputation for being progressive, trendy, and anti-establishment. I've come to despise all three of those words and the stereotypes of people who go with them.

Unfortunately for me, there is not another area that is reasonably safe, inside the loop, and also reasonably affordable. So I'll be here for a while longer..

[RedScare]

While I agree with you, there is a whole lot of NIMBY in this area - I think you will find that it does not matter where you go everyone will have something to complain about. Though there is more complaining here, but I have come to expect that from an area that has a reputation for being progressive, trendy, and anti-establishment. I've come to despise all three of those words and the stereotypes of people who go with them.

Unfortunately for me, there is not another area that is reasonably safe, inside the loop, and also reasonably affordable. So I'll be here for a while longer..

I wouldn't worry too much, at least as it relates to this Walmart. Despite the contradictory claims of s3mh, the 380 agreement DID pass, the mayor continues to state that the Walmart WILL be built, and the permits WILL be issued. s3mh and the other opponents are not fighting a losing battle. The battle has already been lost. But, the more time spent by these people on fighting Walmart means less time spent trying to gain control of my property via "historic districts".

[TheNiche]

For as democrat and free-will as my hood seems to be, there sure is a lot of NIMBY going on. I'm not sure I'm a Heights lifer. People just get too worked up over things that really don't matter.

In all fairness, I just got back from a Pink Floyd concert where neoconservatives went crazy on the lyric, "Mother should I trust the government?" There are hypocritical dumb ____s all over.

[TheNiche]

In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

You claimed that no infrastructure was being built in the neighborhood to the west. Infrastructure is being built. I would say that it was a mistake on your part, but you sure tried hard to come off as though you knew what you were talking about, and I'm going to take that much at face value, consider it to be malicious intent, and call you a liar. There. Done. You lied.

In the future, after you get caught in a bald-faced lie, don't think that you can turn around and distract people from the truth by running your mouth.

Edited October 16, 2010 by TheNiche

[barracuda]

Though there is more complaining here, but I have come to expect that from an area that has a reputation for being progressive, trendy, and anti-establishment. I've come to despise all three of those words and the stereotypes of people who go with them.

When did you move to Austin?

[samagon]

When did you move to Austin?

Austin is all of that but I think he would have referenced the Hipster music too.

[Marksmu]

When did you move to Austin?

Austin....ya, what a great place I would never live...but I do think that the Heights has a bit of that Austin feel - you know keep it weird,.etc....

I mean, where else could you get away with doing this to a house other than here, or Austin? Notice the Bill White sign!

[RedScare]

Austin....ya, what a great place I would never live...but I do think that the Heights has a bit of that Austin feel - you know keep it weird,.etc....

I mean, where else could you get away with doing this to a house other than here, or Austin? Notice the Bill White sign!

Actually, my gripe with the "preservationists" is that they seem to oppose a homeowners right to do exactly this sort of thing to their home. They have petitioned to impose rules on any alteration to the home that does not meet their standards, and have convinced the City to impose those standards with the weight of law behind them. They only wish to shop at expensive stores that the masses cannot afford. They oppose ALL change, even rehabilitated streets that improve traffic flow. In this way, that segment of the Heights is FAR from progressive, trendy, or anti-establishment. Progressives embrace change. Trendy is a word that describes an embrace of the newest trends. Anti-establishment suggests an aversion to bend to the will of the government, which is seen to be controlled by the wealthy and powerful. The Heights residents pushing these issues represent none of that, but in fact, represent the exact opposite. While some of these "preservationists" may support national progressive political ideals, their local ideals contradict that progressive belief. They are more akin to East Coast elitists than Austin liberals.

Please do not identify the "preservationists" as progressive, trendy or anti-establishment. They are nothing of the sort. They exhibit the very same proclivities of the HOA loving, excessive deed restricting suburban master planned community residents that they claim to abhor. Worse, they have just enabled the passage of an ordinance that requires bad architectural modifications to our heretofore beautiful old homes.

[Marksmu]

Actually, my gripe with the "preservationists" is that they seem to oppose a homeowners right to do exactly this sort of thing to their home. They have petitioned to impose rules on any alteration to the home that does not meet their standards, and have convinced the City to impose those standards with the weight of law behind them. They only wish to shop at expensive stores that the masses cannot afford. They oppose ALL change, even rehabilitated streets that improve traffic flow. In this way, that segment of the Heights is FAR from progressive, trendy, or anti-establishment. Progressives embrace change. Trendy is a word that describes an embrace of the newest trends. Anti-establishment suggests an aversion to bend to the will of the government, which is seen to be controlled by the wealthy and powerful. The Heights residents pushing these issues represent none of that, but in fact, represent the exact opposite. While some of these "preservationists" may support national progressive political ideals, their local ideals contradict that progressive belief. They are more akin to East Coast elitists than Austin liberals.

Please do not identify the "preservationists" as progressive, trendy or anti-establishment. They are nothing of the sort. They exhibit the very same proclivities of the HOA loving, excessive deed restricting suburban master planned community residents that they claim to abhor. Worse, they have just enabled the passage of an ordinance that requires bad architectural modifications to our heretofore beautiful old homes.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I cant think of much worse than being called an east coast elitist (not sarcastic). That should be on yard signs and handed out at Tuesday nights meeting. Stop the East Coast elitists from destroying our neighborhood. I do believe you are on to something there. These are pro-government, pro-restriction, east coast liberal tactics being used to attack good honest Texan's property rights...

While I may think that the house I posted is ugly, I do fully support their right to do whatever they please with their own home....I was not posting it because I dont think it should be allowed, I was posting it because it reminds me of Austin.

[IronTiger]

Permit me to ask a seemingly-stupid question, but how exactly will the proposed Wal-Mart force the local Heights businesses out of business?

If you want to support your local businesses, go to them and not at Wal-Mart. You're not going to flock like lemmings to the Wal-Mart and abandon your local stores...you're smarter than that. If you convince your neighbors to do the same, the Wal-Mart will not be getting your money, the local businesses stay open, and who knows--it just might close from lack of business.

[TheNiche]

Permit me to ask a seemingly-stupid question, but how exactly will the proposed Wal-Mart force the local Heights businesses out of business?

If you want to support your local businesses, go to them and not at Wal-Mart. You're not going to flock like lemmings to the Wal-Mart and abandon your local stores...you're smarter than that. If you convince your neighbors to do the same, the Wal-Mart will not be getting your money, the local businesses stay open, and who knows--it just might close from lack of business.

The better question is whether Wal-Mart actually competes with Heights-area retailers.

Wal-Mart sure does sell a lot of apparel, for instance, but are they really going to undercut Harold's or Urban Soles Outpost? And they'd probably have an impact on neighborhood mechanics and tire shops, except that this Wal-Mart won't have an automotive department.

Nah, the truth is that Wal-Mart will be shaving away profit margins from Target, Kroger, HEB, Fiesta, Home Depot, Lowes, CVS, and Walgreens.

[samagon]

While I may think that the house I posted is ugly, I do fully support their right to do whatever they please with their own home....I was not posting it because I dont think it should be allowed, I was posting it because it reminds me of Austin.

I thought the house looked awesome! at least the paint. very cool.