Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Marksmu]

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

To each their own. If your interested in watching the progress of it, (its long from being complete) its being painted on the 1100 block of Waverly.

Its not to my taste, but I respect everyone's own opinions.

[samagon]

I can imagine the time it takes to do something like that. I also have lots of respect for them if they can keep it properly maintained. That's gonna be a lot of work.

[Marksmu]

I can imagine the time it takes to do something like that. I also have lots of respect for them if they can keep it properly maintained. That's gonna be a lot of work.

Seeing as they fail to maintain their yard on a consistent basis, the house is probably really in for it if that paint will require maintenance.

[Materene]

Topic: I would think the answer to Do you want or not want Wal Mart in the area is simple, when that dollar drops to 0 buying power you won't care, you will be very happy to pay 1 dollar for a loaf of bread rather than the 5 dollars at mom and pops. All this angst and talk about Wal Mart would be better served with an effort to get that dollar where it should be and that minimum wage high enough to make these silly topics history. Also Wal Mart has purchased many plots through out the country and never built anything, it's called investment, a win win for them, tax write offs and a plot of land that will go up in value with each passing day. Now how about that minimum wage!

[s3mh]

Topic: I would think the answer to Do you want or not want Wal Mart in the area is simple, when that dollar drops to 0 buying power you won't care, you will be very happy to pay 1 dollar for a loaf of bread rather than the 5 dollars at mom and pops. All this angst and talk about Wal Mart would be better served with an effort to get that dollar where it should be and that minimum wage high enough to make these silly topics history. Also Wal Mart has purchased many plots through out the country and never built anything, it's called investment, a win win for them, tax write offs and a plot of land that will go up in value with each passing day. Now how about that minimum wage!

Wait, didn't you just do a long post waxing on about how wonderful the Heights was when it was full of mom and pops? You don't see the consolidation of all business into publicly traded multinationals as being part of the reason we are all alienated from each other and no longer live the life you were fortunate enough to live in the 1950s?

And, no. Walmart is not buying to hold. The developer would never get reimbursed for infrastructure improvements (6 million) without the sales and ad valorem tax revenues from Walmart. They are building. If you really wanted the Heights to be more like the 1950s, you would not want a Walmart anywhere near the Heights.

[J008]

Also Wal Mart has purchased many plots through out the country and never built anything, it's called investment, a win win for them, tax write offs and a plot of land that will go up in value with each passing day. Now how about that minimum wage!

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you can't depreciate\expense "write off" land.

[s3mh]

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.

Hear is EXACTLY what I said:

"Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood."

You said this was a lie because the 380 agreement widened Koehler. When confronted with the fact that the 380 agreement only widened Koehler from Yale up to the end of the Walmart site and did not go into the abutting (this is a term that means next to the Walmart, not at the Walmart) neighborhood, you could not admit that you were WRONG!!! WRONG!!! You looked at the 380 agreement and assumed that Koehler would be widened past the Walmart. You were WRONG!!!

I did not lie about anything. What I said was 100% the truth. The 380 agreement provides NOTHING for the abutting West End residential NEIGHBORHOOD (last I checked a 152k sq ft Walmart wasn't a neighborhood). If you want to find the definition of malicious intent, look in the mirror. You called someone a liar, were completely WRONG and tried to change what I said to cover the fact that you didn't look at the details of the 380 agreement, even though you are happy to act like you are an authority on it.

[Materene]

The Heights of today is not the Heights of the olden days, it will never be as it was. Mom and Pop stores died over 40 years ago, a new business in a neighborhood is not a Mom and Pop store, the term has been carried over, the true Mom and Pop stores were gone before I finished Jr High. Like it or not big corporations are the ones that are paying huge taxes and have a right to buy property where it is for sale. It seems every year there is a controversy about Wal Mart opening another store, is it right to make these corporations buy property in another persons neighborhood! If people don't care to shop at Wal Mart don't shop there, obviously more do prefer it or they wouldn't be opening so many. In the Heights of the 50's people were concerned about paying their light and gas bills and having a job, not so much about what someone else might be doing. Really there isn't much property left in the Heights to place a large store, so on the curb of I10 sounds like a normal place for it to be. Personally I didn't like it when they put that useless train down Main Street, but hey that's how life is, it leaves you behind and one day you too will see changes to the Heights that have out grown your era. Crime, now there's a nice subject.. the only thing wrong in society is we continuously spend 100's of millions of dollars to keep the thieves healthy so they can resume their thieving ways after their incarceration is over. The root cause of crime is not because there is another Wal Mart in the neighborhood but because those tasked with the problems of harnessing or stopping crime won't make life hard for those doing the crimes. Contrary to what some believe all those thieves can't be re educated or molded back into society, they're lost and people need to realize that. So crime is what it is because we prefer it that way.

[JJxvi]

I'm nostalgic for my youth. I think the Heights should remain perpetually as it was in 1987.

[JJxvi]

Wal*Mart will most definitely increase the amount of crime committed on that block. Its inarguable. What most of the anti-WM folks won't tell you is that in the vast majority of the cases, Wal*Mart will be the victim of the crime. Cost of doing business.

[TheNiche]

Hear is EXACTLY what I said:

"Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood."

You said this was a lie because the 380 agreement widened Koehler. When confronted with the fact that the 380 agreement only widened Koehler from Yale up to the end of the Walmart site and did not go into the abutting (this is a term that means next to the Walmart, not at the Walmart) neighborhood, you could not admit that you were WRONG!!! WRONG!!! You looked at the 380 agreement and assumed that Koehler would be widened past the Walmart. You were WRONG!!!

I did not lie about anything. What I said was 100% the truth. The 380 agreement provides NOTHING for the abutting West End residential NEIGHBORHOOD (last I checked a 152k sq ft Walmart wasn't a neighborhood). If you want to find the definition of malicious intent, look in the mirror. You called someone a liar, were completely WRONG and tried to change what I said to cover the fact that you didn't look at the details of the 380 agreement, even though you are happy to act like you are an authority on it.

I mentioned three streets, not just Koehler. I did not imply that Koehler would go all the way through (which IMO is a good thing because it would encourage through traffic). The widened streets will all serve the adjacent neighborhood. You were complaining that the streets were all too narrow to service Wal-Mart trucks and that that would adversely impact the neighborhood; now they won't be. You would've known that if you'd read the 380 Agreement, which seems to have been the case.

I cited page numbers and was careful not to state anything more than did the 380 Agreement that you linked to because I'm not an authority on the Agreement and never claimed to be. The 380 Agreement speaks for itself. So there.

[IronTiger]

One thing I noticed that I haven't read about on this thread (but no, I didn't read every single page of it) was the demolition of the Heights Plaza apartments on Heights Blvd. when they extend Koehler to 2nd Street. What happens there?

[TheNiche]

One thing I noticed that I haven't read about on this thread (but no, I didn't read every single page of it) was the demolition of the Heights Plaza apartments on Heights Blvd. when they extend Koehler to 2nd Street. What happens there?

The apartments get demolished. Was there something else about them that intrigued you?

[IronTiger]

The apartments get demolished. Was there something else about them that intrigued you?

Oh, not really. It's just that everyone's complaining about Wal-Mart and its perceived effects on the Heights, while there are apartments that are going to get demolished, with people evicted. And everyone's still talking about the Wal-Mart.

The worst part is that the apartments look somewhat interesting and well-kept. There are plenty of run-down apartments in Houston, and those aren't getting flattened (yet).

And didn't Texas recently (last year, I think?) pass a law that said businesses couldn't flatten residential areas via eminent domain?

[TheNiche]

Oh, not really. It's just that everyone's complaining about Wal-Mart and its perceived effects on the Heights, while there are apartments that are going to get demolished, with people evicted. And everyone's still talking about the Wal-Mart.

The worst part is that the apartments look somewhat interesting and well-kept. There are plenty of run-down apartments in Houston, and those aren't getting flattened (yet).

It doesn't get brought up because Heights elitists are looking forward to the demise of these apartments. And nobody else cares because, frankly, even in good times there is an overabundance of crap multifamily housing in the marketplace. It's just not a big deal.

And didn't Texas recently (last year, I think?) pass a law that said businesses couldn't flatten residential areas via eminent domain?

And that applies, how?

[barracuda]

It doesn't get brought up because Heights elitists are looking forward to the demise of these apartments. And nobody else cares because, frankly, even in good times there is an overabundance of crap multifamily housing in the marketplace. It's just not a big deal.

And that applies, how?

"Heights elitist" Marksmu dismissed demolition concerns on account of them being ugly and unsafe in post #1028.

[TheNiche]

"Heights elitist" Marksmu dismissed demolition concerns on account of them being ugly and unsafe in post #1028.

I'm sorry, did you need to be supplied with a Venn diagram?

[barracuda]

I'm sorry, did you need to be supplied with a Venn diagram?

No, but I suppose someone should be supplied with a sense of irony.

[samagon]

I don't have a sense of ironing. I just hang shirts in my shower and let the steam do it's work.

[TheNiche]

No, but I suppose someone should be supplied with a sense of irony.

I see no irony.

The sample pictured is the population of the Heights. The left set is anti-Walmart. The right set is elitist. I'll leave you to figure out what the intersection of the two might imply.

Set theory is fun, but dry. There's not much room for irony.

[IronTiger]

And that applies, how?

I'm just wondering about the legality of a developer knocking down residential apartments (where people still live) to build a commercial business, that's all. Yes, I know it's not technically the Wal-Mart, appears to be some sort of outlot strip center-type building. And yes, I can see now that the building is in poor repair, so I suppose it would be okay for it to get knocked down.

The post is on this page, by the way.

[TheNiche]

I'm just wondering about the legality of a developer knocking down residential apartments (where people still live) to build a commercial business, that's all. Yes, I know it's not technically the Wal-Mart, appears to be some sort of outlot strip center-type building. And yes, I can see now that the building is in poor repair, so I suppose it would be okay for it to get knocked down.

The post is on this page, by the way.

It doesn't matter what shape the multifamily property is in. Everyone can be evicted and the bulldozers doing their job within 60 days, quite easily. The legal process is uncomplicated.

[JJxvi]

Step 1:Buy Appartment complex

Step 2:Tell residents to move

Step 3:Bulldoze your property

?

Profit

[RedScare]

I'm just wondering about the legality of a developer knocking down residential apartments (where people still live) to build a commercial business, that's all.

You are correct that it is generally illegal to knock down apartments (or any other building) while the residents are still there.

[Ross]

I'm just wondering about the legality of a developer knocking down residential apartments (where people still live) to build a commercial business, that's all. Yes, I know it's not technically the Wal-Mart, appears to be some sort of outlot strip center-type building. And yes, I can see now that the building is in poor repair, so I suppose it would be okay for it to get knocked down.

The post is on this page, by the way.

Wait for the leases to expire and tell the residents to move because you aren't renewing them. Then demolish. Easy, wasn't it?

[samagon]

Step 1:Buy Appartment complex

Step 2:Tell residents to move

Step 3:Bulldoze your property

?

Profit

not sure if the apartment complex can break the lease like that (I don't think they can), but it's easy to say, sorry, we aren't renewing leases, or make it cost prohibitive so people don't want to renew their lease, or let them continue living there month to month, with a notice that on month x they gotta go.

I think they can also come to an agreement with the tenant.

could be worth a call to the rental office to find out about getting a new lease, if they say they have no new leases to sign, there you go.

However they do it, it will surely be within the letter of the law.

and regardless, it would be up to the tenant to decide whether they want to pursue any legal recourse, if something was done in violation or not.

also, there's nothing saying in the information released whether that part of the development is going to happen at the same time as the rest or not, it could be a different 'phase' of what happens?

Edited October 20, 2010 by samagon

[J008]

not sure if the apartment complex can break the lease like that (I don't think they can), but it's easy to say, sorry, we aren't renewing leases, or make it cost prohibitive so people don't want to renew their lease, or let them continue living there month to month, with a notice that on month x they gotta go.

I think they can also come to an agreement with the tenant.

could be worth a call to the rental office to find out about getting a new lease, if they say they have no new leases to sign, there you go.

However they do it, it will surely be within the letter of the law.

and regardless, it would be up to the tenant to decide whether they want to pursue any legal recourse, if something was done in violation or not.

also, there's nothing saying in the information released whether that part of the development is going to happen at the same time as the rest or not, it could be a different 'phase' of what happens?

I haven't looked at rental agreement in a while, but I am confident that there is some language that covers change of ownership (since this is Texas I would also imagine it is very favorable to the landlord). I lived across the street from Allen House when it was bought and the people were out of there pretty quick.

As far as the condition of these apartments. I still question that they are in ill repair. I cycle by them daily and they are in better shape than several others on Heights blvd.

[20thStDad]

I haven't looked at rental agreement in a while, but I am confident that there is some language that covers change of ownership (since this is Texas I would also imagine it is very favorable to the landlord). I lived across the street from Allen House when it was bought and the people were out of there pretty quick.

As far as the condition of these apartments. I still question that they are in ill repair. I cycle by them daily and they are in better shape than several others on Heights blvd.

I'm not sure it had anything to do with change of ownership, more likely a term in the lease, but at Allen House they did tell people to be out before some of their leases were up. I'm sure there was a minimum notice # of days, but a friend of mine had to be out 3 months before his lease was up.

[barracuda]

I see no irony.

The sample pictured is the population of the Heights. The left set is anti-Walmart. The right set is elitist. I'll leave you to figure out what the intersection of the two might imply.

Set theory is fun, but dry. There's not much room for irony.

You left out pro-Walmart non-elitist who look forward to the demolition, which is the case referenced earlier. Can you point to any "Heights elitists" who've actually stated they look forward to the demolition?

[TheNiche]

You left out pro-Walmart non-elitist who look forward to the demolition, which is the case referenced earlier.

No, you just don't understand set theory.

Can you point to any "Heights elitists" who've actually stated they look forward to the demolition?

Yes. I suggest you read back through the thread.