Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Leonard]

Well I hope we get to find out exactly how much the City pays for this 380. The Kroger one is awful too even though it does have some schedule and a fixed interest rate. The HEB one is just ridiculous.

[Leonard]

Redscare, if you want to see the context, read the 380. You can find them all here: http://204.235.237.46/finance/ecodev/380.html

I don't recall lambasting anyone, or using saying anything about corruption or cronyism.

[RedScare]

Well, you stay right on it. As for me, I enjoy driving on my new Studewood, North Main, and 11th Streets, and I will enjoy driving on my new Yale and Summer Street cut through to PetSmart. I even enjoy driving on my new I-10 feeder road, which, as a Heights resident, I am supposed to hate. So sue me. I pay a lot of property taxes, and I enjoy seeing some of those taxes go to improve the streets, water mains and storm sewers in and near my neighborhood. If a 380 financing mechanism brings these infrastructure improvements to my 'hood sooner, all the better. That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction.

[Leonard]

"That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction. "

Ponzi schemes have been around for over 100 years.

[s3mh]

That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction.

The problem is that sec 380 isn't supposed to be a financing scheme for municipalities. There are plenty of existing financing mechanisms to do what the Walmart 380 agreement does. 380 agreements are supposed to provide assistance to developers who would not otherwise be able to build without the assistance of public funds, whether to fund public improvements or to provide direct loans or grants to make the development possible. Every dollar that goes to a development that does not need the assistance is potentially a dollar taken away from a potential development that does need the assistance (like the plan to rennovate the old Texaco Building on Rusk, which is short just over $10 mil to get the project rolling). Just because you are happy to see infrastructure improvements does not mean that the City is doing what they should be doing with 380 agreements.

Edited March 28, 2012 by s3mh

[Leonard]

s3mh - you are exactly right. 380's were not set up to be loans TO the City, they're supposed to be loans or grants FROM the City.

Both the Ainbinder and Kroger 380's are set up as loans to the City for work that should be paid for by the developer.

[RedScare]

The problem is that sec 380 isn't supposed to be a financing scheme for municipalities. There are plenty of existing financing mechanisms to do what the Walmart 380 agreement does. 380 agreements are supposed to provide assistance to developers who would not otherwise be able to build without the assistance of public funds, whether to fund public improvements or to provide direct loans or grants to make the development possible. Every dollar that goes to a development that does not need the assistance is potentially a dollar taken away from a potential development that does need the assistance (like the plan to rennovate the old Texaco Building on Rusk, which is short just over $10 mil to get the project rolling). Just because you are happy to see infrastructure improvements does not mean that the City is doing what they should be doing with 380 agreements.

Whoa! s3mh and Leonard agree with each other. Didn't see that coming.

Actually, the REAL problem here is that I (and many others) do not mind the 380 being used for this purpose. You will simply have to keep looking for someone who cares. I support BOTH 380 agreements. I will also shop at both stores, thereby allowing my tax dollars to help retire the debts.

These 380s have nothing whatsoever to do with projects in Downtown, which have myriad grant and financing programs available to them. And, complaining that two developers got 380s because you wanted a 3rd developer to get one is just the kind of hypocrisy that we have come to expect out of RUDH. This is just as hypocritical as all of the posts criticizing Walmart for selling Chinese products while the same posters are silent regarding the dead Chinese workers making shiny Apple iPads.

When you guys get your outrage all on the same page, give me a ring. Until then, take your complaints to the Facebook page, where no one actually looks at the substance of your rants.

Edited March 29, 2012 by RedScare

[TheNiche]

You won't get any argument from me that 380 Agreements are fertile ground for misanthropic endeavors. If they are administered as they have been to date, then I don't see that they should continue to be administered at all. And Leonard is right, the Gulfgate one is ridiculous! It makes Ainbinder's look wholly legitimate and even-handed by comparison...but that's just it, is that this one does't really piss me off. The developer and the City both wanted the infrastructure, but neither needed it; an arrangement was made whereby the infrastructure could be afforded now instead of later without conflicts of interest, and with managed risks for both parties. It wasn't perfect, but everybody wins as per the spirit of the law. I'm still opposed to this one because I'm opposed to all of them, but that stance has nothing to do with how well this one was crafted or that Wal-Mart is a tenant.

Where you I seem to disagree is that I oppose comments that are ill-informed or coercive, and that is how I would categorize the bulk of the NIMBY response to this issue, including yours.

[Leonard]

TheNiche, I don't support ANY 380's. I don't know if RUDH does or not.

How could Walmart not "need" the infrastructure in the 380? They are required to connect to water, sewer and storm sewer. They are required to put in traffic control measures (turn lanes and traffic signals).

My comments are neither ill informed nor coercive.

[TheNiche]

Good for you for not supporting 380s in general. Wal-Mart has as much to do with this as does Murphy's Deli, whether Murphy's Deli is a tenant or not. Water, sewer, and storm sewer connections are obviously required; traffic control measures of this extent may or may not be. As a statement of fact, your comments are either ill informed or coercive; I have not decided which.

[Leonard]

The traffic control measures in the 380 are all required in the Traffic Impact Analysis that Ainbinder had prepared as required by the City. This is a fact.

Murphy's Deli is not required to open in the Ainbinder 380 for reimbursement - the Walmart is. That's why Walmart is relevant to the 380 and Murphy's Deli has nothing to do with it. This is a fact.

"As a statement of fact, your comments are either ill informed or coercive; I have not decided which." You don't know what a "fact" is, a "fact" either is or isn't, it's not something that you decide.

[RedScare]

TheNiche, I don't support ANY 380's. I don't know if RUDH does or not.

How could Walmart not "need" the infrastructure in the 380? They are required to connect to water, sewer and storm sewer. They are required to put in traffic control measures (turn lanes and traffic signals).

My comments are neither ill informed nor coercive.

You linked to the exhibit showing all of the improvements provided by the 380. It far exceeds water, sewer and storm water connections. It calls for replacing the sewer and storm water pipe over the length of that section of Yale. It also calls for replacing the entire roadbed, something that Ainbinder or Walmart would not normally be required to do. To make connections, they would normally simply cut the asphalt, make the connections, and repave the cut. The 380 replaces the entire street and adds expanded sidewalks.

Given that you found the link and probably read what you found, the evidence suggests your arguments to be coercive, rather than ill-informed...unless you actually believe retailers are required to replace streets when they build.

[samagon]

s3mh - you are exactly right. 380's were not set up to be loans TO the City, they're supposed to be loans or grants FROM the City.

Both the Ainbinder and Kroger 380's are set up as loans to the City for work that should be paid for by the developer.

whoa wait, since when is a 380 ONLY for the use of a loan?

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

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

The word is INCLUDING, it doesn't say LIMITED TO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and don't be shy about including references!

[Leonard]

Redscare, the current storm water system isn't big enough to handle the runoff from Walmart and keep the parking lot from flooding, that's why they are replacing it - to provide bigger pipes. There is nothing in the 380 Exhibit C list I linked to about replacing Yale, only providing a left turn lane.

The requirement is to return the street to the condition before the cuts were made. Patching is not allowed unless the street is on the 5 year plan.

Samagon, hopefully RUDH will win it's lawsuit against this 380. I stand by my statement, if it was originally intended for private enterprise to provide loans to the City at uncapped interest to fund improvement the developers would have been required to do, they would have listed it.

[samagon]

Samagon, hopefully RUDH will win it's lawsuit against this 380. I stand by my statement, if it was originally intended for private enterprise to provide loans to the City at uncapped interest to fund improvement the developers would have been required to do, they would have listed it.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, the way it reads the intended purpose is to do exactly as it says:

...to stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality.

So, I'm going to go with what the law states vs. your interpretation of it. If you can provide some data to show me that your thoughts are more than just your opinion, I'll be more inclined to not disagree with your statement.

Basically, if you can show some legal precedence that backs up your understanding of the law, that's really what I'm hoping you can provide.

Otherwise, the court hearing this case will be making the legal precedence. I just hope that if the city wins RUDH can afford to pay, rather than it falling to my tax dollars paying for their failed boondoggle.

[RedScare]

Redscare, the current storm water system isn't big enough to handle the runoff from Walmart and keep the parking lot from flooding, that's why they are replacing it - to provide bigger pipes. There is nothing in the 380 Exhibit C list I linked to about replacing Yale, only providing a left turn lane.

The requirement is to return the street to the condition before the cuts were made. Patching is not allowed unless the street is on the 5 year plan.

Samagon, hopefully RUDH will win it's lawsuit against this 380. I stand by my statement, if it was originally intended for private enterprise to provide loans to the City at uncapped interest to fund improvement the developers would have been required to do, they would have listed it.

Now you are simply making things up. Are you an alter ego of s3mh? Contractors patch roads all over the city. And a 6 foot cut in the street does not necessitate a total rebuild of a quarter mile stretch of road. Are you that ignorant, or do you just hope that we are?

As for the storm water comment, where is your proof? The city now requires 18 inch culverts in the ditch in front of my house, even though the ditch never floods. New standards are different from "cannot handle".

[s3mh]

whoa wait, since when is a 380 ONLY for the use of a loan?

http://www.statutes..../htm/LG.380.htm

The word is INCLUDING, it doesn't say LIMITED TO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and don't be shy about including references!

The City of Houston ordinance creating the City's 380 program is limited to loans and grants. Although, the Walmart 380 is effectively a grant because it allows the developer to recover its cost from taxes. But to the extent the improvements are not required, then it is basically a financing agreement with the developer providing financing to the City.

[Leonard]

Redscare, I repeat: replacing Yale is not in the 380 Exhibit C on the City's website.

Samagon, "to stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality". Ainbinder said the project would go forward without the 380. Therefore, the 380 does not stimulate anything. I'm hoping that RUDH sets some legal precedence.

[s3mh]

Good for you for not supporting 380s in general. Wal-Mart has as much to do with this as does Murphy's Deli, whether Murphy's Deli is a tenant or not. Water, sewer, and storm sewer connections are obviously required; traffic control measures of this extent may or may not be. As a statement of fact, your comments are either ill informed or coercive; I have not decided which.

Walmart bought the land. They are not leasing from the developer. The trafic control measures are required mitigations. No traffic engineer in the world could jack up the numbers enough to make a Walmart anchored development work without any left turn lane access from the main traffic artery.

[samagon]

The City of Houston ordinance creating the City's 380 program is limited to loans and grants. Although, the Walmart 380 is effectively a grant because it allows the developer to recover its cost from taxes. But to the extent the improvements are not required, then it is basically a financing agreement with the developer providing financing to the City.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but as this is the first I have heard that Houston has a ordinance that states what you're saying, I'd love to see it myself

the code is big, please reference so we're working off the same data:

http://library.munic...?clientId=10123

If the city is acting against it's own ordinances, I'd be happy to donate to the cause.

Edited March 29, 2012 by samagon

[s3mh]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but as this is the first I have heard that Houston has a ordinance that states what you're saying, I'd love to see it myself

the code is big, please reference so we're working off the same data:

http://library.munic...?clientId=10123

If the city is acting against it's own ordinances, I'd be happy to donate to the cause.

It is ordinance no. 99-674. It is referenced in the Walmart 380. I do not think it got put into the code of ordinances. It is just like the zillions of ordinances that are passed everyday to approve expenditures etc. I saw it online once, but cannot remember where. Maybe someone else has a link.

[samagon]

It is ordinance no. 99-674. It is referenced in the Walmart 380. I do not think it got put into the code of ordinances. It is just like the zillions of ordinances that are passed everyday to approve expenditures etc. I saw it online once, but cannot remember where. Maybe someone else has a link.

thank you for trying at least. I did see that 99-674 was the ordinance, but can't find it online.

I'm not sure if this was posted previously, but I found the lawsuit itself...

http://dig.abclocal....H380Lawsuit.pdf

it is interesting to note that in the lawsuit there is mention that the current 380 agreement was amended because RUDH mentioned that the city wrote a 'blank check' which no matter how I try to understand it, it always sounds like RUDH was accusing the city of giving the developer money, as in a loan (and a loan with no cap), not the other way around.

no matter, the crux of my understanding of the 'spirit of the law' is to promote development by whatever means the city has available. I'm expecting we'll find out that this is how the city intended to execute the law, not limit itself to only a specific handful of tools to execute a 380 agreement.

I was hoping though that you could shed some light otherwise, and really until we can read the ordinance for itself, we can't do much other than make conjecture on what we expect the ordinance allows, or doesn't.

Edited March 29, 2012 by samagon

[Leonard]

The "blank check" statement is because the 380 intially allowed a single City staffer increase the amount of the 380 w/o it going back to Council. I don't remember which staff member. The Parker Administration amended the 380 to cap the 380 at $6.05M (interest is outside the cap, however) because of protests from RUDH and others.

SilverJK, great input to the debate, however, it was s3mh who brought up the 99-674 Ordinance, although I have read it.

[SilverJK]

Well, i figured since others were making up "facts" i might as well too.

[Leonard]

The Houston Press links to Ordinance 99-674 in this article:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/10/heights_walmart_ainbinder_380.php

Follow the Houston 380 Ordinance link.

SilverJK, yes, it's me Leonard making this post.

s3mh - I like my bridge icon. Speaking of bridges...

[TheNiche]

Ainbinder said the project would go forward without the 380. Therefore, the 380 does not stimulate anything.

Let's say that you were a sport fisherman and you went catfish noodling in a pond nearby. You wish that it were stocked with bass and that the rutted road would be filled in, but it isn't. You still go noodling. A local municipality considers stocking it with bass and installing some aerators to improve the ecosystem, but some joyless numbskull argues that since sport fishermen already enjoy the use of the pond, it isn't beneficial to make it any more enjoyable. (The numbskull would prefer that the money be used to lure a "chef-driven restaurant", whatever the hell that is.) You'd be pissed, right, because that's just stupid. Your behavior may not change, but you and people like you would still enjoy the improvements...even if none of you could afford to finance them on your own.

If the 380 doesn't stimulate anything, then why would the developer bother with it? Clearly there is a public benefit, just not enough for the developer to agree to pay for such things as scraping and re-painting the Heights and Yale bridges, or to remove an old railroad bridge over White Oak Bayou, or to re-grade and re-seed the bayout itself without sharing the cost by some public mechanism. (All of these things are part of the 380 Agreement.)

[Leonard]

The developer bothers with it because it gets the City to reimburse them for all of the items in the 380, the vast majority of which they are required to do. Plus interest.

So they do the work on the bayou, they get paid back plus an uncapped amount of interest at an uncapped rate. They're making money on it.

[Leonard]

It's easy to see in the Kroger one. Kroger is making a $40K "donation" to Olivewood. For this faux-lanthropy, Kroger gets paid back the $40K plus 5.17% interest. That's a pretty good rate.

Same deal with the stuff Ainbinder is doing, except we don't know the interest rate.

[samagon]

The Houston Press links to Ordinance 99-674 in this article:

http://blogs.houston...nbinder_380.php

Follow the Houston 380 Ordinance link.

SilverJK, yes, it's me Leonard making this post.

s3mh - I like my bridge icon. Speaking of bridges...

Thanks for linking it, dug in and found the direct link:

http://media.houstonpress.com/5545889.0.pdf

note that it says that they accept gifts (4th whereas) as well as offer loans and grants.....

then under section 1-ii it states again, to accept contributions, gifts or other resources persuant to section 380.001 of the local government code...

I hope that the only leg wasn't that this is not a loan....

[Leonard]

It's called an Infrastructure and Financing Agreement, so maybe it is a loan. But it's definitely not a loan TO Ainbinder. If it is a loan, it's a loan FROM Ainbinder TO the City. To pay for stuff Ainbinder should be paying for.