Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[TheNiche]

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.

I would contend based on Exhibit C of the executed 380 Agreement that they would not be required to perform the vast majority of the scheduled items if the 380 had not been executed. Earlier language within the agreement requires Ainbinder to conform to local codes and ordinances and authorizes Ainbinder to bill the City for compliance with respect to the infrastructre that is being built for the City, but that's a perfectly reasonable default condition. I can see how it seems confusing, however.

I would also contend that to the extent that Ainbinder finances the improvements with debt, Ainbinder only gets reimbursed for the cost of the debt. In that situation, Ainbinder does not make any money, however Ainbinder is being indemnified by the City so as that it is Ainbinder's responsibility to properly construct the improvements and to properly deal with its contractors and subcontractors. Construction is a risky enterprise, so Ainbinder's commitment is valuable. If Ainbinder finances the construction with its own money, it is only entitled to the prime rate plus one percent, which at this moment equates to 4.25%. But that means that they've tied up their money indefinitely for a rate of return that is a fraction of the IRR that is being sought from the development itself. Ainbinder is not a subsidiary of Bank of America, after all, they're a small business. They'd CERTAINLY rather have the money in their pocket than have it be tied up in the City's infrastructure. The opportunity cost is too high, meaning that Ainbinder ends up leaving money on the table.

Again...I don't pretend to believe that the City structured the deal optimally and I am against it, but your criticisms are unfounded.

Edited March 29, 2012 by TheNiche

[Leonard]

TheNiche - you're wrong about the infrastructure not being required. They have to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. Surely you concede that these items in the 380 are required (Walmart needs water for it's low flow urinals and somewhere to flush them to). They have to provide traffic controls - it's in the Traffic Impact Analysis they had to commission. For example, the $200K traffic signal at Yale and Koheler is REQUIRED for the development - the developer should pay for this.

The idiotic language in the 380 saying they have to conform to codes and ordinances means nothing - of course they have to conform to codes and ordinances - whether or not there is a 380.

If COH does not pay the entire amount on the 15th month anniversary of the grand opening of the Walmart, the interest rate is 10%.

In the Council discussion of the Kroger 380, CM Clutterbuck said COH can borrow money with tax exempt bonds at 2.55%, or taxable bonds at 4.06%. Both of these are lower than 4.25%.

Ainbinder most likely thinks this is a good deal or they wouldn't have made it. If they CERTAINLY would rather have the money than have it tied up in infrastructure, then CERTAINLY they wouldn't have made this deal.

[RedScare]

TheNiche - you're wrong about the infrastructure not being required. They have to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems.

I'm confused by this. Would you explain what YOU believe connecting to water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer entails? Would you be so kind as to give YOUR estimate of what this would normally cost? Would you give YOUR estimate of what demo and reconstruction it would entail?

The reason I ask is that MY experience with this things involves at best a few thousand or ten thousand dollars. Water lines are generally not under the street, and invloves cutting into the existing line and adding a meter. Not expensive. Sanitary sewer lines are also often not under the street, though occasionally they are. Connection involves cutting into the pipe to add the connection. Sometimes, it involves cutting out a section to add a section with a wye built in. More expensive than water connections, but not prohibitive. Storm water connection depend on how much drainage is needed. It is the most expensive, but again, not more than a few tens of thousands of dollars.

The 380's most expensive provision involves purchasing land and building an extension of a street. This is definitely not required in order to build the Walmart. The city wants it, and asked Ainbinder to build it. But, I'd like to know what YOU think is required and what it cost.

[TheNiche]

I'd like to know what YOU think is required and what it cost.

Me too. Please itemize and cite the relevant ordinances.

[Leonard]

You are absolutely right - the costs listed in the 380 are probably much too high - and 20% soft costs and 20% contingency on top of that is way out of line.

All of the water, sewer and storm sewer connections are listed as belonging to a street - possibly because they run under the street. For example, half of Bonner (one lane) was torn up for the sanitary sewer connection - it's listed under the Bonner Street section. Just to make the sanitary sewer connections the 380 Exhibit C lists these costs as over $70K (not including any road work). I guess you could have saved the City tens of thousands of dollars on just this work alone.

But you can read the 380 yourself and see what they say it all costs.

The Koehler extension is listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis: "As part of the proposed retail development additional roadway improvements are planned as a deliberate effort to enhance mobility, provide access and reduce the impact of this development on traffic." It's required, like the traffic lights and the turn lanes.

The 380 itself calls the Improvements (the Exhibit C list) "necessary to serve the Project".

[TheNiche]

Why do you think that the soft costs and contingency are way out of line? What is reasonable in your view? Why is your view more valid than those that authored the agreement?

Also, I would advise you to go back and read the 380 agreement, as well. You should see what it says and what the costs are. You should itemize the infrastructure that is required of all new development and cite the ordinance that requires it. I'm asking this of you because it was obvious at first that you were criticizing the 380 Agreement without having read it. Now, you read it, and have moved onto citing code without having read that.

The TIA sounds like it took into account certain assumptions as defined in the scope of services. I'd imagine that the strip center across the way required an appraisal assuming the presence of Wal-Mart, the anchor store, in order for the developer to obtain construction financing. It doesn't mean that a Wal-Mart is mandated by law or even by the loan docs. By the way, can I get a link to the TIA?

As for the 380 stating what is "necessary", RedScare is a lawyer. Perhaps he would be so kind as to provide us with the legal definition of the term when it is not propped up by even the slightest mandate or consequence.

Edited March 30, 2012 by TheNiche

[Leonard]

I think 5% contingency would be more in line, and not on top of soft costs. The Kroger 380 has 10% contingency, not on top of soft costs. Although the Kroger 380 includes contingency on the $40K "donation", which makes no sense.

I've read the Ainbinder 380 many times, starting when it first came out. Yes, I have gone back to refer to it.

I'll try to find a link to the Ainbinder TIA.

[RedScare]

I think 5% contingency would be more in line, and not on top of soft costs. The Kroger 380 has 10% contingency, not on top of soft costs. Although the Kroger 380 includes contingency on the $40K "donation", which makes no sense.

I've read the Ainbinder 380 many times, starting when it first came out. Yes, I have gone back to refer to it.

I'll try to find a link to the Ainbinder TIA.

If you had read the fine print at the bottom of Exhibit 'C', you would have seen that these are estimates. It is entirely possible that these numbers come in much lower, given current conditions in the construction industry. It is also possible that this 5% contingency may in fact occur. Reading what is actually stated, as opposed to imagining the worst case, helps.

[Leonard]

Of course it's an estimate. Contingency can ONLY be on an estimate. Actual amounts are never spent on "contingency", they are spent on actual stuff.

You're the one that originally said these amounts are too high. I was agreeing with you.

[RedScare]

You are absolutely right - the costs listed in the 380 are probably much too high - and 20% soft costs and 20% contingency on top of that is way out of line.

All of the water, sewer and storm sewer connections are listed as belonging to a street - possibly because they run under the street. For example, half of Bonner (one lane) was torn up for the sanitary sewer connection - it's listed under the Bonner Street section. Just to make the sanitary sewer connections the 380 Exhibit C lists these costs as over $70K (not including any road work). I guess you could have saved the City tens of thousands of dollars on just this work alone.

But you can read the 380 yourself and see what they say it all costs.

The Koehler extension is listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis: "As part of the proposed retail development additional roadway improvements are planned as a deliberate effort to enhance mobility, provide access and reduce the impact of this development on traffic." It's required, like the traffic lights and the turn lanes.

The 380 itself calls the Improvements (the Exhibit C list) "necessary to serve the Project".

I have read the 380. It is clear that you believe everything in the 380 is "required", when in fact, the overwhelming majority of the construction is unrelated in a "required" context. For instance, there are several 10 inch sanitary sewer lines to be installed per the 380. These go under the railroad track, up Yale, and up Bass and Bonner. These lines are not required for the development to move forward. They are intended to improve the infrastructure for the neighborhood, much of which has densified with 6 townhomes replacing one single family home. The development will not strain water and sewer capacity, not in the way residential does. In fact, an apartment complex was demolished on site, freeing up more capacity than the development will need.

Examples:

Bonner Street. $220,000 for sewer line and repaving street. Not required for development.

Koehler Street. Extend 12 inch water line and repave street. Not required for development.

Bass Street. New storm sewer and repave street. Not required.

Heights median improvements and West End park. Definitely not required.

The only items definitely needed to serve the development would be the Yale turn lanes and the traffic signals at the Yale=Koehler intersection. The development could be adequately served by Yale, just as the larger Target development is served by Taylor Street, a 2 lane road. All of the rest of the 380 items were requested by the City, which is why the City is reimbursing for them. These items were requested to improve the infrastructure for the ungrateful neighbors nearby, who are taxing the infrastructure with their densely built townhomes.

It is not expensive to make utility connections. The City made the agreement in order to REPLACE aging infrastructure. Just because you want to argue that it is "required" doesn't make it true. Replacing the infrastructure now, as opposed to when the development is open and traffic is higher, makes sense. You only oppose it in order to oppose Walmart. That doesn't make sense.

EDIT: And please cite your source for those items that are "required". The TIA doesn't necessarily mean it is "required".

Edited March 30, 2012 by RedScare

[samagon]

TheNiche - you're wrong about the infrastructure not being required. They have to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems.

the sewer connections already exist, it's a grey field, not green. They're increasing from whatever standards existed when the original site was built. It's my understanding that they wouldn't have to do this.

EVEN if you were right in that they have to replace sewer, repaving an entire street wouldn't be part of any project, resurfacing a street not adjacent would certainly NOT be included as part of the project.

[Leonard]

Exactly. The City is paying for infrastructure that the development should be required to pay for. The traffic light and the turn lane being two examples.

Even you must concede that some of the money for sewer, water and storm water connections would be required. Just because you want to argue that it's not required doesn't make it true. It's all required.

The onsite detention wasn't required, so they took it out. The traffic light at Koehler and Heights wasn't required, so they took it out. They took these items out because they weren't required. They left in the stuff that is required.

The park and median improvements are the equivalent of the Olivewood "donation" in the Kroger 380 - designed to make it "look good" but costing a small fraction of the total. The Olivewood "donation" is obviously skeevy (I think donating to Olivewood is a good thing, by the way - it's skeevy for the City and Kroger to say that Kroger is donating to Olivewood when they are getting reimbursed plus 5.17% interest) but the park and median work here is the same sort of thing. These agreements were put together by the same City employees.

[Leonard]

samagon - which street are you talking about?

[Jesse]

My head hurts

[s3mh]

I have read the 380. It is clear that you believe everything in the 380 is "required", when in fact, the overwhelming majority of the construction is unrelated in a "required" context. For instance, there are several 10 inch sanitary sewer lines to be installed per the 380. These go under the railroad track, up Yale, and up Bass and Bonner. These lines are not required for the development to move forward. They are intended to improve the infrastructure for the neighborhood, much of which has densified with 6 townhomes replacing one single family home. The development will not strain water and sewer capacity, not in the way residential does. In fact, an apartment complex was demolished on site, freeing up more capacity than the development will need. Examples: Bonner Street. $220,000 for sewer line and repaving street. Not required for development. Koehler Street. Extend 12 inch water line and repave street. Not required for development. Bass Street. New storm sewer and repave street. Not required. Heights median improvements and West End park. Definitely not required. The only items definitely needed to serve the development would be the Yale turn lanes and the traffic signals at the Yale=Koehler intersection. The development could be adequately served by Yale, just as the larger Target development is served by Taylor Street, a 2 lane road. All of the rest of the 380 items were requested by the City, which is why the City is reimbursing for them. These items were requested to improve the infrastructure for the ungrateful neighbors nearby, who are taxing the infrastructure with their densely built townhomes. It is not expensive to make utility connections. The City made the agreement in order to REPLACE aging infrastructure. Just because you want to argue that it is "required" doesn't make it true. Replacing the infrastructure now, as opposed to when the development is open and traffic is higher, makes sense. You only oppose it in order to oppose Walmart. That doesn't make sense. EDIT: And please cite your source for those items that are "required". The TIA doesn't necessarily mean it is "required".

TIA is required by the design manual to show that traffic at each intersection has not been degraded below certain standards depending on existing conditions. The traffic engineer does his modeling based on the traffic design proposed by the developer in the TIA. Once that TIA is submitted and approved by the City, the developer is bound to follow the design and cannot go back and change the design without a revised TIA because the traffic modeling in the TIA is based on the design that is submitted to the City. Thus, the Koehler extension, widening yale for left turn lanes, the connection of Bass to the feeder and left turn lanes at Heights are all required because they are on the TIA. Likewise, the drainage/sewage plan that is submitted to the City must show sufficient drainage and wastewater capacity to get water off the development and into the sewers without contributing to the existing flooding on the roadways and to handle the sewage. Once the plan is submitted to the City and approved, the developer is bound to make the improvements. So, if you are looking for an ordinance that says "if you build a strip mall, you must do x, y, z", you won't find any express requirements for drainage or traffic. The City relies on the judgment of private PEs hired by the developers to devise plans that will properly mitigate traffic and drainage/wastewater. Once those plans are submitted and approved, the developer must build according to those plans.

[s3mh]

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.)

Worst analogy ever.

Sec. 380 and the related amendment to the state constitution came about during the great recession of the late 1980s. The legislature was concerned that Texas was too dependent on the oil industry and wanted to give municipalities the power to attract businesses to Texas that were not related to the oil industry (that is why sec 380 says "diversify" the state and local economy). The legislature was also concerned with the real estate bust in Texas and wanted municipalities to have the ability to intervene in the market to get developers off the fence and back to building. Since then, 380 agreement have been used in other municipalities to provide assistance to developers to redevelop brownfields and old buildings when the cost of infrastructure improvements and rennovations made the project cost prohibitive compared to developing in areas where the existing infrastructure was sufficient and there were no prohibitive redevelopment costs. The first 380 agreement the City did was with the developer who rennovated the old Humble Oil building and turned it into the Marriot courtyard downtown. The developer needed significant government support to save the historic building. The developer came up short when HISD refused to give the development a tax abatement. The City gave the developer a loan for the amount of the HISD tax abatement in order to save the development. Sec. 380 was never contemplated to provide public funds to private interests when market forces were sufficient to move a development forward. That takes sec 380 from Keynes to Marx. It was also never contemplated to be a financing scheme for public improvements.

[RedScare]

Once again, s3mh/Leonard simply ignore things when it doesn't fit their narrative. The TIA includes the Koehler extension because the city had already approached the developer about financing upgrades. The extension would not be required absent the agreement by the city to pay for it through the 380.

Again, where is the ordinance or study requiring the repaving of Bass and Bonner? There isn't one because the city asked Ainbinder to do it, and offered to reimburse them for it.

[samagon]

Exactly. The City is paying for infrastructure that the development should be required to pay for. The traffic light and the turn lane being two examples.

Even you must concede that some of the money for sewer, water and storm water connections would be required. Just because you want to argue that it's not required doesn't make it true. It's all required.

The onsite detention wasn't required, so they took it out. The traffic light at Koehler and Heights wasn't required, so they took it out. They took these items out because they weren't required. They left in the stuff that is required.

The park and median improvements are the equivalent of the Olivewood "donation" in the Kroger 380 - designed to make it "look good" but costing a small fraction of the total. The Olivewood "donation" is obviously skeevy (I think donating to Olivewood is a good thing, by the way - it's skeevy for the City and Kroger to say that Kroger is donating to Olivewood when they are getting reimbursed plus 5.17% interest) but the park and median work here is the same sort of thing. These agreements were put together by the same City employees.

is there an expectation that if you buy a piece of land that previously had a building on it (and therefore had all sewer, water, electric) that you re-do all of those lines even if they work properly? I didn't bring up the park, cause well that's such a small component of the overall cost. But the drainage is a pretty big component, and if there is no rule in place that they would normally have to upgrade all sewer lines, then why would they unless compelled through a mechanism such as this?

The community outcry was pretty high regarding the stormwater, and drainage, so it appears that the RUDH is fighting a product of their own success here.

[samagon]

Once again, s3mh/Leonard simply ignore things when it doesn't fit their narrative. The TIA includes the Koehler extension because the city had already approached the developer about financing upgrades. The extension would not be required absent the agreement by the city to pay for it through the 380.

Again, where is the ordinance or study requiring the repaving of Bass and Bonner? There isn't one because the city asked Ainbinder to do it, and offered to reimburse them for it.

luckily I doubt the courts ruling on this won't ignore those facts.

[Leonard]

In summary:

We all agree that the City is financing infrastructure through Ainbinder at an unknown and uncapped interest rate.

We all agree that some of the infrastructure is required for the development, and some is not.

We all agree that the City will ultimately pay for all of the infrastructure in the 380 up to $6.05M plus unknown and uncapped interest, regardless if it is required for the development or not.

The only thing we disagree on is what infrastructure is required for the development and what is not required.

[RedScare]

That is a rather large disagreement, since the only possible required upgrades would be turn lanes and a stoplight on Yale, a project that would cost no more than about $175,000. The rest of the project are upgrades that the City is adding, including the most expensive one, purchasing ROW and extending Koehler to Heights Blvd.

[s3mh]

Once again, s3mh/Leonard simply ignore things when it doesn't fit their narrative. The TIA includes the Koehler extension because the city had already approached the developer about financing upgrades. The extension would not be required absent the agreement by the city to pay for it through the 380.

Again, where is the ordinance or study requiring the repaving of Bass and Bonner? There isn't one because the city asked Ainbinder to do it, and offered to reimburse them for it.

The Koehler extension is a chicken or the egg issue that only the City and the developer know the answer. The developer did get a variance for the Koehler extension long before the 380 made it to counsel. Whether that was because they needed it to make the TIA work or whether it was only included at the behest of the City is an issue that you are certainly in no position to opine on. But, once it goes in the TIA, it must be built. The traffic engineer's modeling assumes that the road exists and reduces traffic on other intersections. The developer would have to submit a brand new TIA in order to avoid making the extension.

Bass is also being repaved to make it suitable to connect with the feeder. Same issue with the TIA. Without the connection, more traffic goes to Yale and the assumptions in the TIA have to be completely redone. Bonner is getting paved because they had to dig it up for a sewer connection. The developer wanted the connection and is required to repave after tearing up the road.

Or put another way, why in the world would the developer take on the risk of the 380 agreement (i.e. development goes bust and no tax funds to repay) to do a bunch of improvements that are just for the general benefit and welfare of the public? The answer is that the developer is mostly using the 380 to pay for what they were going to have to build anyway. Only a few bucks for community fluff (trail, park, bridge lights) are not necessary for the development.

And the most obvious point is that the first page of the 380 agreement says that the improvements "must" be built for the development.

-

[samagon]

The Koehler extension is a chicken or the egg issue that only the City and the developer know the answer. The developer did get a variance for the Koehler extension long before the 380 made it to counsel. Whether that was because they needed it to make the TIA work or whether it was only included at the behest of the City is an issue that you are certainly in no position to opine on.

If you change this to read...

...is an issue that NONE OF US are in a position to opine on.

then I'd be amenable, but you always pretend to have some inside information that you seem to think makes you an expert. I hope you realize that this is pretty damned insulting, especially considering you aren't privy to any information that we aren't all privy to.

If you are privy to some information that isn't available to all of us, don't hold back, put it on the table, but you never do, and I doubt this is any different.

[Leonard]

Redscare: "That is a rather large disagreement, since the only possible required upgrades would be turn lanes and a stoplight on Yale, a project that would cost no more than about $175,000."

Dude, read the 380. I know without going back to look the traffic light alone is estimated at $200K. And then you gotta add on 20% soft costs and 20% contingency on top of that for $288K just for the stop light.

[TheNiche]

Worst analogy ever.

Sec. 380 and the related amendment to the state constitution came about during the great recession of the late 1980s. The legislature was concerned that Texas was too dependent on the oil industry and wanted to give municipalities the power to attract businesses to Texas that were not related to the oil industry (that is why sec 380 says "diversify" the state and local economy). The legislature was also concerned with the real estate bust in Texas and wanted municipalities to have the ability to intervene in the market to get developers off the fence and back to building. Since then, 380 agreement have been used in other municipalities to provide assistance to developers to redevelop brownfields and old buildings when the cost of infrastructure improvements and rennovations made the project cost prohibitive compared to developing in areas where the existing infrastructure was sufficient and there were no prohibitive redevelopment costs. The first 380 agreement the City did was with the developer who rennovated the old Humble Oil building and turned it into the Marriot courtyard downtown. The developer needed significant government support to save the historic building. The developer came up short when HISD refused to give the development a tax abatement. The City gave the developer a loan for the amount of the HISD tax abatement in order to save the development. Sec. 380 was never contemplated to provide public funds to private interests when market forces were sufficient to move a development forward. That takes sec 380 from Keynes to Marx. It was also never contemplated to be a financing scheme for public improvements.

It doesn't have to be a strong analogy. The looseness of my analogy actually inherent to my point.

The scope of Chapter 380 can be so broadly construed that my fishing analogy can fit right in alongside that of this real-world scenario or that of the Humble Building. All it takes is a savvy consultant that specializes in economic development studies to quantify (and often rhetorically load up) the direct and indirect economic impacts.

For instance, infrastructure that addresses runoff concerns and that prevents street flooding certainly has a diversified impact. Better drainage leads to fewer insurance claims, lower premiums, and higher property values. Quality of life improvements (such as the wide sidewalks, wider trees, extended jogging trail, and improved parks in the Ainbinder agreement...or ostensibly keeping around a fancy shmancy HEB in so supposedly under-served neighborhood...or the preservation of a beautiful but functionally obsolescent highrise) are the most politically favored, and it would seem should be the most favored by RUDH. If RUDH were smart about promoting the interests of their neighborhood, they'd be actively promoting other public/private partnerships between the City and other property owners in their neighborhood in order to obtain disproportionate funding for the neighborhood's pet projects...and wouldn't particularly give a damn whether the City's financial obligations were made responsibly.

And no, it isn't about Keynesianism. It never was. It's completely and totally Marxist, replete with the opportunities for corruption. I keep explaining that I oppose Chapter 380 of the Local Government Code. I'd like a City referendum to be made whereby the public can direct the City to no longer make use of these provisions of state law; and ultimately, I'd like Chapter 380 repealed by the state legislature.

However, I also oppose RUDH's hairbrained and frivilous legal actions against the City of Houston. And I oppose the ill-informed and/or coercive commentary that is being spread about in a public forum by the likes of you, Leonard, and others.

[Leonard]

Ill-informed? You're the one that calls it noodling, when it's clearly catfisting.

I'm not sure how anybody's comments here, ill-informed or otherwise are coercive.

[west20th]

Ill-informed? You're the one that calls it noodling, when it's clearly catfisting.

I'm not sure how anybody's comments here, ill-informed or otherwise are coercive.

Poor kitty!

[samagon]

Quality of life improvements (such as the wide sidewalks, wider trees, extended jogging trail, and improved parks in the Ainbinder agreement...or ostensibly keeping around a fancy shmancy HEB in so supposedly under-served neighborhood...or the preservation of a beautiful but functionally obsolescent highrise) are the most politically favored, and it would seem should be the most favored by RUDH. If RUDH were smart about promoting the interests of their neighborhood, they'd be actively promoting other public/private partnerships between the City and other property owners in their neighborhood in order to obtain disproportionate funding for the neighborhood's pet projects...and wouldn't particularly give a damn whether the City's financial obligations were made responsibly.

how do wider trees improve quality of life?

you'd think RUDH would be all over the Gulfgate HEB thing, I can't understand how a store that is as busy as that store is can be losing HEB money. I stopped going there cause I don't like to wait in line for 20 minutes to checkout because there are 10 people in front of me with a loaded up basket. I shopped there for 1 year trying to find best times of day when it was empty, or near empty to shop, it's always packed. And the 380 for that says they are not profitable? I just don't get it?

you know, I think IRUDH isn't a good enough name change...

IRUDIMBYWIITHWDCATROH is probably better.

IRresponsible Urban Development In My Back Yard Which Is In The Heights We Don't Care About The Rest Of Houston

And no, it isn't about Keynesianism. It never was. It's completely and totally Marxist, replete with the opportunities for corruption. I keep explaining that I oppose Chapter 380 of the Local Government Code. I'd like a City referendum to be made whereby the public can direct the City to no longer make use of these provisions of state law; and ultimately, I'd like Chapter 380 repealed by the state legislature.

I don't disagree with a 380 in principal, I think it can be a powerful tool that helps put Houston on an even playing field when trying to lure business here vs going somewhere else.

However, I also oppose RUDH's hairbrained and frivilous legal actions against the City of Houston. And I oppose the ill-informed and/or coercive commentary that is being spread about in a public forum by the likes of you, Leonard, and others.

This I agree with completely, I doubt the entire 380 gets killed, if anything, I bet they drop a few items from the list, costing the city less money for the 380, but ultimately it will cost more in legal fees for the city than the amount of money that was saved by taking this to court.

could it be argued that by doing this that it won't happen again in the future as a result of this? that's doubtful.

And the most obvious point is that the first page of the 380 agreement says that the improvements "must" be built for the development.

-

you are also the same person who said a few pages back that the Houston Ordinance for the 380 said that the ordinance only accounted for a loan, or grant....

[TheNiche]

how do wider trees improve quality of life?

you'd think RUDH would be all over the Gulfgate HEB thing, I can't understand how a store that is as busy as that store is can be losing HEB money. I stopped going there cause I don't like to wait in line for 20 minutes to checkout because there are 10 people in front of me with a loaded up basket. I shopped there for 1 year trying to find best times of day when it was empty, or near empty to shop, it's always packed. And the 380 for that says they are not profitable? I just don't get it?

Wider trees are older. They take fewer years to become mature contributors to the urban canopy.

I specifically remember that when they first opened up, the Gulfgate location was lauded as among their most profitable stores. I'm pretty sure that if HEB had a problem, it was that Wulfe jacked up their rent...which would make the 380 Agreement basically a pass-through to a landlord that brags in public on how well-connected he is with the City. Its just speculation on my part, but it seems the most likely circumstance.

I don't disagree with a 380 in principal, I think it can be a powerful tool that helps put Houston on an even playing field when trying to lure business here vs going somewhere else.

I don't disagree with the intent of Chapter 380 in principal; I disagree with its use in practice. It's too easily abused or (much more often, I think) simply used in a sub-optimal fashion by well-meaning people that aren't hotshot finance gurus, and that are advised by attorneys on a staffer's salary and that haven't got a dog in the fight.

If it were up to me, I'd prefer that economic development programs were carried out by Management Districts, and also that Management Districts were mandated by the State to budget directly according to participative constituent input. It's not up to me, though.

[samagon]

Wider trees are older. They take fewer years to become mature contributors to the urban canopy.

I specifically remember that when they first opened up, the Gulfgate location was lauded as among their most profitable stores. I'm pretty sure that if HEB had a problem, it was that Wulfe jacked up their rent...which would make the 380 Agreement basically a pass-through to a landlord that brags in public on how well-connected he is with the City. Its just speculation on my part, but it seems the most likely circumstance.

I'd imagine they are better at sequestering carbon dioxide as well, that's a bonus for the whole planet!

I would imagine if IRUDIMBYWIITHWDCATROH really wanted to be called RUDH they should be going after the city for this rather than the ainbinder 380.