barracuda

I don't think Houston really has a cowboy stereotype. DFW to me feels more like that. Especially from its freeways since they have a lot of wide open spaces along them. Houston's freeways are more built up.

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

This is what I don't understand. What you are basically saying is that being involved in the affairs of your community is only worth it if there is a realistic chance you will get what you want.

Yes. Or a reasonable compromise. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Otherwise, we all have to just shut up and trust Michael Ainbinder to do what is right for the community.

Under what legal basis can it be stopped?

Frankly, no one who is against the walmart thinks that they have some silver bullet. We know much better than anyone on this message board what we are up against. But, the idea that a battle that cannot be won should not be fought is just the kind of idea that help make Walmart what it is and enables a land use system that allows one guy to determine the character of an entire area. I don't care whether I win or lose. What I care about is that people know that my community is organized and ready to fight developers that do not respect the community. We may lose against Walmart, but might win against the Rutland Highrise or whatever stupid idea comes up next.

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.

Also, since the land behind the building (between it and the park) is still a separately-owned surface lot, there was a decent chance that something would be built that blocked a nice and expensive facade if one had been built that faced the park.

We can only hope.

how many signatures were collected?

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.

If you'd take the time to read back through this long thread, you'd find that the majority of nearby residents don't mind the development being built as it is now. Even the Walmart haters cheered when the sign went up signaling the development of a shopping center on the Knights of Pytheus site. The only opposition at all is directed at the Walmart itself. Some of them (most of them?) even suggested that if another big box store (HEB) replaced the Walmart, they'd be happy...no, ecstatic. The neighbors have no problem with traffic, crime and rampant consumerism, as long as the traffic, crime and consumerism comes from Target, 'mom and pop' stores (whatever those are) and 'mixed use' developments. Only when a Walmart is in the mix, does the outrage start, which is amusing, since the only thing that zoning and other governmental controls CAN'T control is which retailers open up on the site. Either the site is suitable for retail or it's not...and this site is clearly suitable for a retail development, perhaps moreso than any other site near the Heights. Great access to freeways and major thoroughfares, not a residential neighborhood (despite claims to the contrary, an industrial site is not residential), and close to other restaurants and retail.

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.

The owner of those awful apartments made in investment in them years ago which you did not contribute too, he likely took a large risk of getting paid his rent, by operating these low income units. He is now getting his payday by selling these apartments. His use of his money to invest in something he hoped would one day offer a large return is likely paying off now. You do not, and you should not have any say in any way about whether or not he demolishes this eyesore

Furthermore - the city wants tax revenue. Low income housing provides very little tax revenue. The people who live in low income housing pay little in taxes and contribute usually less to the taxbase than they take out of it. They tend to over utilize emergency rooms, and generally are a net loss financially for the city as a whole. Sure - some business gets to save a few dollars by paying a lower wage, but the city as a whole is a loser in this equation. In effect we taxpayers are subsidizing the lives of many of the low income residents.

That sounds harsh, but its true. The city now has the opportunity to bulldoze this awful complex, and replace it with a tax generating net gain for the city and the residents of near by neighborhoods. They can do this by not renewing the leases at ONE tiny low income apartment complex....that sounds like one heck of a good deal to the city if you ask just about anyone who cares about finances....you relocate a net loss and you add a contributing member to its place. Is that elitist? To not feel bad when progress is made? Maybe, if so, call me an elitist...I dont really care. This is progress...might not be your liberal utopian version of progress but we are taking something and replacing it with something else that it is better and contributes, rather than takes. Its a baby step, but its in the right direction.

Finally, there is no shortage of affordable housing inside the Houston 610 loop and on established bus lanes...just start looking off OST, Yellowstone, Cullen, etc....there is a plethora of low income housing that could not be more affordable. A lot costs less than $12,000 and the homes in the area sell in the range of $60-100K. Rent there is even more affordable. Its not as nice an area as where they are now, and it lacks alot of the amenities that come with living directly next door to a nice area....but it is housing and it is affordable, and inside the loop.

The people in these apartments may not want to relocate to that area because its not as nice as the area they are in now, but that is the risk you take when you rent. You can be evicted and have to move. I do not feel sorry for the people being relocated because of progress...they will not disappear, they will not become homeless, they will just have to find a different home. It may not be as convenient as the one they are in now, but the city,the taxpayers, and certainly private property owners should not have to spend their money on making sure the low income residents have all the luxuries of those who contribute much more to the base.

Your posts make it sound as if the Walmart is killing these people and then making sure they cannot live inside the loop. This is one tiny crappy complex, that nobody but the few residents who live in it will miss.

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.

How in the world does Bill White carry Dallas County, but get trounced in his own hometown - Harris County? I think it speaks to the content of his character.

You mean trounced in that Bill White beat Rick Perry in Harris county?

White 395,180 50.2%

Perry 378,928 48.2%

Don't you think that the Metro area is getting tired of the Heights? Unfortunately the Heights has an activist minority that is behaving like a spoiled child clamoring for attention all the time and whining for mother's help. Whining about historic preservation, whining about a Wal-Mart.... What's next? It's time to spank that child!

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.

We have two politicians both hiding something....White is known to be a sanctuary city supporter, while Perry is known to be apathetic to border issues except during election years.

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.

He screwed up with the Trans Texas corridor, he screwed up with the mandatory HPV shots, he screwed up with his pathetic stance on border issues....he has lots of failures....but White is completely incompetent. He would bankrupt the state.

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.

I don' like Rick Perry or think he is a good choice, but Bill White is incompetent, and Perry is the lesser of two evils.

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.

I'm an elitist....wow I've never been called an elitist....been called a lot of things, mostly a redneck, which goes well with elitist... but I'll just add this to my list of names...maybe Ill add a signature to my name...Marksmu -"redneck elitist"

WalMart bought the land the apartments on....they have every right to bulldoze them once they evict, buy out the tenants leases, or relocate them. Will I cry a tear for the loss of that lovely complex? No I will not. Progress is progress....I dont cry tears for run-down property being bulldozed. People get displaced by progress all the time...its called the real world...Its one of those things you know going in when you rent....you dont have any say at all about whether or not you will be there once your term is up. You don't own it, you don't get a say...your only vote is with your wallet. There is still plenty of affordable inner loop property to be rented or purchased... I wont cry a tear for this loss of this building. If that makes me an elitist in your book , then I guess to you I am an elitist.

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.

Wow. They aren't even trying:

http://www.intown-homes.com/communities.aspx?midcia=2&tab=1&wlink=19&xfloor=2186.0000

Or maybe it is a plot to get people to appreciate McVics.

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.

No, you just don't understand set theory.

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.

Yes. I suggest you read back through the thread.

That doesn't answer the question.

I don't think you get my point. I don't want the Heights to be separate from Houston... nor do I want River Oaks to separate or anywhere else. It just sucks that certain areas of town get such high favor while other continue to be neglected. We should all feel safe at night, and we should all have regular police patrols. Those kinds of inequalities should not be tolerated. I hope that Prop 1 can help a bit with this (if it passes)

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.

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?

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.

Who says we couldn't have our cake and divorce it too??

The Houston Heights still uses all of the city's services, so just propose to them that if they want a divorce, we're just going to charge extra alimony on their water lines, roadways, police and fire services, etc. Until they develop all of that stuff independently, they get to pay us the big bucks. Personally, I don't think it's fair that our police forces maybe show their face in my side of town twice a week (for patrols... they're ALWAYS at Ninfa's) while the Heights gets to be a focal point just b/c they have more money. Let them pay for cops in Eastwood, and I'd be happy to see them hit the door.

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.

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.