barracuda

Yes, but in this case the city has already endorsed and thrown their support behind the project, and there is basically zero chance of this changing based on the lack of political interest in thwarting this development that is supported by much of the community. Maybe so, but given that this development is moving forward, I'd rather it include infrastructure improvements and amenities like wider sidewalks and more trees that the 380 agreement provides incentives for. If the opposition's activities help put pressure on the city and developer to ensure these improvements are implemented, then I support their efforts. If, however, these activities end up allowing the development to complete without the needed infrastructure improvements or amenities, then it's not really a win-win for anyone. True, there aren't many options for the local community to oppose these projects unless a high-ranking city official takes on the cause. The zero-tolerance perspective of private property rights advocates perplexes me, particularly when applied to large-scale projects that do affect the local community. Even though I don't agree with all your posts, I do agree with your right to voice your opposition, and I'm surprised by the ferocity of some responses to your comments.

Fort Worth should champion the cowboy stereotype. Dallas can go with the pretentious bible-thumper stereotype. Houston doesn't really have a distinct personality, which is part of the reason I like it.

I don't understand why traffic keeps coming up as an argument against this development. Any development on that site is going to increase traffic. With the other Walmarts being built in the area, I would suspect that this Walmart will primarily attract local residents and have a fairly compact radius of shoppers. Even if it does cause significant net-new traffic, the new feeders and on/off ramps on I-10 should mitigate neighborhood traffic through the Heights on Yale.

Toronto's PATH system is 28 km (17 mi). From my experience, the tunnels are much wider than ours although it has much more of a shopping-mall feel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_path

Yes. Or a reasonable compromise. Otherwise it is a waste of time. Under what legal basis can it be stopped? I think a better focus would be to work on changing the system to allow more community input into large-scale projects in the future.

We can only hope.

Folks in my neighborhood have been going street by street, and I believe a majority of the neighbors on my street have signed to overturn the ordinance. I signed it last week because I think the ordinance is over-reaching, and I prefer the deed protections that were agreed upon by a majority of residents in my neighborhood years ago. I also don't think my house, which I spent a lot of money to renovate, neatly fits the description in the historical context (it was a completely bland and unremarkable house previously, to the point of being ugly, and poorly maintained). And yet, I now regularly receive positive comments from folks walking down the street that they love my house because of the unique features, which would probably have been denied under this ordinance because they don't exactly match the original hideous and cheap architectural features they replaced.

That's partly true. Walmart has been noted throughout this thread on a long account of documented charges. There really are valid reasons for people to dislike Walmart, although I'll give the company credit for the improvements they've been making. There are also those of us who simply dislike big-box retailing in general due to it's corporate soul-crushing blandness and massive surface lot automobile-centric design. That said, I've grown mostly indifferent to this development due to it's inevitability, and folks are wasting their time thinking they can stop it.

I don't understand how folks paying $650+/month on rent are a financial net loss to the city. Ultimately it's up to the owner of the complex to sell or not, but I don't think it's fair to attack affordable apartments as a drain on city finances. For one, these are the same folks who could be working at the retailers displacing them, and I don't think they need to be told where to live. Secondly, the strip mall may or may not increase the taxable value of the land, but regardless, that seems like a shallow way of looking at things. There's a reason we don't all live in River Oaks, or even the Heights. You seem to be rationalizing your revulsion of this affordable complex by making all kinds of assumptions, some false or unproven.

It's also interesting that the border counties had the highest voting disparity in favor of White over Perry. The highest was Starr county at 80/20 in favor of White.

You mean trounced in that Bill White beat Rick Perry in Harris county? White 395,180 50.2% Perry 378,928 48.2%

I suspect the Metro area is largely indifferent to the Heights or any other specific neighborhood, and the folks who feel offended are probably guilty of the same sense of self-importance as the Heights activist minority they're annoyed with.

Houston is not technically a sanctuary city. It was under Mayor White that the city started screening the immigration status of suspects charged with Class B misdemeanors or greater crimes, and turning over illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Perry has already bankrupted the state. If you've been paying attention, you'd know that the state faces an $18 billion budget deficit for the next two year budget. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704513104575256734081528528.html The only benefit if Perry wins is that folks can't blame White for the mess left by his predecessor, which is the situation Obama seems to be in these days w.r.t. the economy.

Is Bill White incompetent or do you just disagree with some of his policies? I agree that Perry is an awful choice, so I didn't vote for him.

With those numbers, it's too bad they didn't pursue a legitimate profession...they may have been quite successful.

That would be prop 3. I was on the fence but ended up voting for it. Statistically, they do save lives as well as generate money for trauma centers.

Marksmu, it was sarcasm (hence the quotes). I don't think you're an elitist.

I had to go last week for renewal and a new photo. 4:30 in the afternoon and there was one person in line. I am surprised that TXDPS still sends new drivers licenses by mail instead of printing and laminating them at the branch for immediate delivery, like some other states have been doing for several decades.

They will look even better in a few years when the roof and fake stucco are stained and discolored by mold.

There were dedicated efforts under the Bush administration to find and prosecute voter fraud, and only a few dozen cases were found nationally. There is no credence to this article...it is simply meant to stir up fear and anger in a touchy constituency that wants to blame others for their problems.

You don't understand irony. You presented a Venn diagram that doesn't apply to the situation. There are only three elements in your diagram. None of them describe post 1028. Ironic. That doesn't answer the question.

That's not what you said in your last post. Some communities hire a constable to improve police patrols in their neighborhood. Mine has considered it, but it is quite expensive. I don't know what part of the Heights gets regular police patrols, but it certainly isn't happening in my neighborhood despite the property taxes. Those that do have regular patrols are probably paying for the service.

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?

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

They don't want a divorce. It's one of your fellow Eastwood area residents who want a divorce from the Heights because some of them opposed a Walmart Supercenter development.