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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

JJxvi: 380 bad.

Yes, I am arguing that the $6M is for water and sewer connections and traffic controls required by the TIA for the project. What do you think it's for?

Which minimum standards are exceeded?

There's nothing that compels Ainbinder to take out a single loan for the 380 items and the rest of the project. There is no cap on interest rate in the 380. Whether or not you think they will get a great interest rate does not change the fact that the contract does not protect the City. In fact, the 380 itself calls for 10% interest rate if the City does not pay on the 15 month anniversary.

The interest does not start accumulating when the Walmart opens, it starts accumulating when Ainbinder borrows it. Ainbinder started accumulating interest on the money they borrowed for the Koehler Street Extension over a year before construction started (they did not start construction for over a year after the 380 passed).

The Orr development started after the Ainbinder development. The Orr development is almost complete. Although there is no schedule in the 380, it's already too late for the Ainbinder development to open "on time".

Redscare, specifically what is "extreme exaggeration" about my post?

Bonner - they did not build the entire street.

The requirements are set by the City, not by what I think are minimum requirements or by what you observe at other developments.

They have to cut open the street to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. They are required to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer by the City. The City doesn't let them leave the street cut open, therefore they are required to rebuild the street. A lot of this infrastructure runs under streets which is why the street has to be torn up and rebuilt.

They are required to install traffic control devices that are laid out in their Traffic Impact Analysis which the City also requires them to do.

Redscare, yes, but it is required.

They only replaced half of Bonner - because they only tore up half of Bonner to connect to the sanitary sewer. Half is not the entire street. At times they had no permits for this work.

They are doing some replacement of storm sewer infrastructure on Yale - but only because it is required to keep the development from flooding. This will hasten the flow of water from the development's parking lot to White Oak Bayou - causing more flooding issues for Woodland Heights. Lack of retention is grandfathered in.

The infrastructure being developed is so that the development can meet minimum standards.

"The 380 agreement allows the City to REPLACE the entire street, as well as REPLACE the water, sewer and storm water utilities."

Where did you get this information? The are connecting to existing infrastructure, not replacing it.

The City isn't doing this work - the developer is - and on their schedule. They are doing the minimum required for the development.

And not only is the amount of interest uncapped, so is the interest rate.

TheNiche - specifically what infrastructure are you talking about? The vast majority (90%) of the infrastructure is REQUIRED to build the development. The only reason they are repaving roads is because they HAVE to - they are digging up the roads to connect the development to the City water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. Once you dig up the road, you are obligated to repair it. The Traffic Impact Analysis requires the Koehler Street extension and the traffic light at Yale and Koehler.

There are a few items thrown in that aren't required - the esplanande work, some park work and cosmetic work on the bridges. The cosmetic work on the Yale Street Bridge is extremely suspect from a financial point of view in light of the ratings for that bridge.