TheNiche

I don't think that I disagree with anything you just said (even if you did put a rhetorical spin on what I've said). However you are still zeroing in on the single most prominent issue even though there are a myriad of other factors that fueled the discord. But if we can agree that the Southerners believed (rightly or wrongly) that the North was usurping states' rights, property rights, the lawful administration of interstate commerce, and was acting punitively toward them in a variety of unrelated matters, and that they were materially harmed by that relationship...then that rationale does not strike me as inherently offensive. It's more like a jilted business partner that wants to spin off and form a new company; and it's easy to see how he'd have thought that he had a right to do just that. When their right of secession was also usurped, the Southerners came to view themselves as rebels proudly fighting for a noble cause.

The politicians had their reasons for drafting documents as such; citizens from various southern subcultures had other reasons for electing and backing the politicians; the soldiers had other reasons for fighting the war. Some things change, other things not so much. In my opinion, it is no more accurate to characterize today's Democrats as primarily motivated by socialism as it is to characterize yesterday's southerners as primarily motivated by racism.

The myriad of events that led to the Civil War (aka the "War of Northern Aggression") are exceedingly complex, largely forgotten. While it is true that some were in it for the white supremacy, racism existed everywhere, and to a large extent still does. (Remember those race maps that came out about a year ago? Compare Houston to any northern or east coast city; southern and western attitudes are very different, in some ways more liberal IMO.) I think that most were simply concerned for the direct or indirect impact of abolition to the economic viability of their regional economy. This was an issue that had vexed generations of otherwise thoughtful southerners, going back to George Washington. There was at the time a legitimate legal question regarding the extent of states' rights; and rural southerners had never been completely comfortable with federalism as provided by the Constitution. It also bares consideration that about 70% of Confederate soldiers were not slaveholders and that in fact there were a wide variety of subcultures within the south, all of them differently motivated. Then consider that propaganda on both sides was either written or spread by word of mouth (and always credibly embellished to influence the local subculture), yet that the literacy rate was abysmal; it doesn't mean that they were stupid, just differently informed. Also consider that the ultimate victor got to write the history books, comforted by the catharsis of his nationalism. I'd argue that northern stereotypes of southerners from the mid-19th century remained largely intact for a century...and even today persist in a blue state vs. red state political discourse and in some pop culture...such as anything produced by Seth McFarland.

It is my opinion that the officers' lifestyle preferences are in conflict with the intent of the organization that they lead. In order to credibly support that opinion as something more than speculation, I offer pertinent facts sourced from the public record. I stated earlier that I came across many other details about their personal lives, also a matter of public record. However I chose not to reveal them on HAIF because those are not pertinent facts that support my opinion. The RUDH officers assumed the role of public figures by incorporating this entity and then suing my City. They have no expectation of privacy and they should not automatically expect politeness from every random individual on the internet (although they might've obtained it had they been forthright with me and asked nicely). Don't put words in my mouth. Corporations are legal entities with rights and responsibilities and that afford some protections to its members. I don't always agree with the law as written, interpreted, or practiced (particularly where non-profits are concerned), but the law is what it is. If I just bloviated on the basis of my own sense of morality and ethics, ignoring the effect of law and other real-world constraints, then my contribution to HAIF or the public discourse would be superficial. It'd be 'intellectual masturbation'...to coin a term.

Mostly just HCAD and Google Streetview, actually. A person's place of residence and the circumstances of their purchase reveal a great deal about their lifestyle preferences. Considering that six out of six of the RUDH officers that are financially vested in the community have purchased new housing stock rather than make any effort to preserve the character, traditions, and appearance of the neighborhood--even though they clearly had the financial wherewithall to do so--I think that the evidence is valid and statistically significant. You are welcome to disagree, and I'm sure that you will; but consider that every time you and s3mk reply to me, it validates the threat that I pose to RUDH's credibility. That is to say, if it were so obvious to everyone that I should not be taken seriously, then you wouldn't take me seriously either.

What is written in the incorporating documents is important for a reason! It provides for a limitation of the purposes to which the donors can expect that their money will be put to use. It is the basis for an implicit trust between the organization and its donors. If that verbiage is meaningless or is so broadly construed as to become meaningless, then it is my opinion that RUDH effectively has no purpose and should not qualify for tax exempt status. If they can't take this stuff seriously, then RUDH needs new leadership or should disolve. You are welcome to criticize HPRA. I don't have a dog in that fight. There are a number of mismanaged organizations; that fact by iteself should not excuse RUDH from being one of them.

RUDH is not merely a social club that meets up at neighborhood cafes and bars. They are incorporated. They are allowed to take money from the general public and use it at their discretion; and with great power comes great responsibility. However, they advance a cause contrary to the lifestyle preferences of their leadership. They are frivilously suing my local government. They threatened legal action to try to censor me. RUDH needs to get their act together. If their feelings are hurt, it is only sympomatic of their failure to adequately "represent the community before local government and educate the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community".

RUDH's Certificate of Formation describes its purposes as follows. They also cite it almost verbatim in the first sections of most of the documents that they author. "This organization is 501c4 community association devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Huoston [sic] Heights and West End neighborhoods by representing the community before local government and educating the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community." Hmmm...that whole bit about "preserving" makes me think that they might like to preserve or avoid changing something. Sustainability is all about densification, infill, brownfield redevelopment, and using the latest technologies and construction practices to conserve water and energy, and to reduce waste. RUDH does not seem to actively advocate sustainability, nor do they mention it as a goal. Most organizations make this kind of thing clearly apparent on their website, and to that end their website could use some improvement. That is my opinion, take it or leave it. But I will graciously concede the point that most of the names are there for someone that digs into the RUDH propaganda. And to that end, thank you for pointing me toward a letter with the names of more officers of RUDH. Something I didn't expect was that the attorney that RUDH used to threaten HAIF is actually indicated as the President of the organization. It's odd that he introduced himself as an attorney rather than as an officer of the organization. Not exactly forthcoming... If he had bothered to express reasonable concerns to me directly by PM, man-to-man, then I would not have been so motivated to research and ultimately expose his officers as hypocrites. We would not be having this conversation. If the officers of RUDH are pissed about what I have to say about them, then I hope that they are also pissed at him. He appears to lack the basic social skills to deal with minor instigators like myself. He is an ineffective leader. Robert B. Task, President 417 E. 25th St., Houston, TX It's another townhome! Built in 2001, this structure is out of scale with the endangered single-story originals of Sunset Heights. He purchased the ticky tacky townhome in 2009, having moved into Sunset Heights from the awesomeness that is...Atascocita. He had lived there in a new-ish home for seven years. The house is located 400 feet from a Target store. Although Mr. Task lives much closer to the Northline Wal-Mart than to the proposed Washington Heights Wal-Mart, and although he moved into the neighborhood in time, I do not recall anybody in Sunset Heights raising a ruckus when Northline got redeveloped. Colton Candler, Director 1158 Bonner St., Houston, TX If anybody has a right to be all pissy about Wal-Mart, it's this guy. His garrish new townhome, built in 2005, overlooks the contaminated brownfield where Wal-Mart will be sited. It also overlooks...railroad tracks. The tracks are about 25 feet off his back wall. Imagine, someone that can put up with this for a neighbor...and he's whining about the new grocery store going in next door! Jeffery C. Jackson, Director [not a property owner] I don't mind outing this guy's law firm since he is apparently proud of his affiliation with RUDH. There you go Jeff, some free advertising. If I'm not mistaken, this is the baby lawyer that RedScare likes to make fun of. I'll leave it to him. In summary, I have identified seven members of RUDH. They live in four new townhomes, two new-ish houses, and one apparently is not yet financially vested in the community. Not a single person lives a lifestyle that is consistent with the stated goals of RUDH...but they'll take your donations! Oh hells yeah, they will!

s3mk, Their website only lists generic contact information and no information about the leadership, much less any public or members-only meetings. In my mind, that's anonymity. It also did not link to the stopheightswalmart.com page, which they apparently sponsor but copyright under a different name; and even there, you have to dig deep to find out anything about the people that organize it. I also had stumbled upon the names of these individuals in various news articles while Googling around, however the individuals did not publicly disclose any affiliation with RUDH. (In retrospect, I should've tried "Nick" instead of "Nicholas" where my research of Mr. Urbano is concerned. That would've turned something up.) Unlike RUDH, I have not incorporated an entity that claims to represent the interests of any individual, group, or vaguely-defined geographic area. I do not solicit donations from the general public for whom I promote a preservationist aesthetic without personally adhering to any of the principles that I espouse. I have not filed suit against a government entity. I do hold RUDH and its organizers to a different standard than any random HAIFer. Their transparency (or lack thereof) is fair game, at least as far as I am concerned. You are welcome to agree or disagree with me.

If the City ignores the suit, then there will be a default judgment against the City. The City pays reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, plus interest. The 380 Agreement gets nullified. The developer would then bring suit against the City because it acted in bad faith by approving the 380 and then not making any attempt to uphold their part of the bargain. It might also be construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. If the City rolls over again, then the developer also obtains a default judgement against the City so as to make them whole again...plus attorney's fees, court costs, and/or interest. If the City defends the case...it'll probably lose anyway but will spend lots and lots more money in order to lose. If the City does not want to become entangled in litigation, its best policy is to be judicial in the application of 380 Agreements. Some of them are just ridiculous. And for the 380 Agreements that it has already executed, it should act in good faith to execute those agreements and to defend them from entities like RUDH. Rolling over on a specious lawsuit only invites more specious lawsuits...and more attorney's fees, court costs, and/or interest. EDIT: Of course...the parties to the suit are a non-profit and a government entity. Standing is all screwy. Lots of things are weird about this. So... ***DISCLAIMER: I'm not an attorney. I'm probably wrong! Do not do anything based on what I say...ever."

Although I cannot read minds, my doubt that they would be so kind is sincere. I mean, c'mon, seriously. These are community activists that desire anonymity. Those concepts are conflicted. They tried to coerce the owner of this forum into censoring me because I told the world how to communicate with them. They have not demonstrated rational judgement or even an internal consistentcy of their thought processes. Their expectations are not reasonable; they are not nice. Hence...the sincerity of my doubt.

My point was that people on this forum should contact RUDH members and inform them as to how and why they are hypocrites. Another poster suggested that picketing their homes might be appropriate. Shortly thereafter, RUDH got an attorney to try to censor this forum of public information about persons active in the public realm. My suggestion that people should exercise their first amendment rights to free speech, directed at activists whose contact information is a matter of public record, was construed as a threat. That's silly, of course, but one good turn deserves another, and so that is what motivated me to research the organization's leadership more thoroughly. It was only then that I discovered this pattern of hypocrisy among RUDH's leadership, ill-fitting with RUDH's stated goals. And FYI, I was able to find out much more information about the members. However...I don't feel the need to disclose information about their family, their employment history, their failed business ventures, etc., and I'm even doing them the favor of keeping their (easily researched) telephone numbers off of HAIF. This is because I have tact. If our roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that they would be so kind.

Density. A more intensively developed site is going to create more traffic. They might counter that a mix of uses could mitigate the traffic, and that's true to a certain extent. But how many retail businesses survive on a captive audience of a few hundred on-site residents? If office space were included in such a plan, that would be a total blowout where traffic is concerned. There's nothing quite to produce a twice-daily surge of traffic during the most congestion-prone hours like office space. Again, some people would no doubt make use of their feet. But if the ratio of residents and those employed on-site that drive versus persons that would walk or take transit is, say, 4:1 such as it is in the Galleria area, then density adds drivers faster than you add walkers. Density (without Manhattan-like transit) brings more traffic. It is an inescapable fact, one that I think they're aware of. Orienting buildings toward the street. Surely you don't mean Yale? Half of the frontage along Yale is below-grade; that's why the site plan has buildings right up against Yale but facing away from it. People couldn't get there from here. Ya wanna fight about it!? Besides, this is the kind of thing that goes well aesthetically along with density. (A big box store facing the street is monolithic, at least as unappealing as a parking lot hidden by landscaping.) ...but density brings icky traffic. So that's out. Heights bike trail. As a consequence of this project, it is being extended south of I-10, and extra-wide sidewalks and traffic lights will be installed to manage traffic. It'll be a whole lot safer for cyclists to get around than it had been previously, not to mention that with additional retail, cyclists will have more places close by to cycle to. But honestly, I think that you nailed it. They'd be fine with density, they don't really care about traffic, they pretend not to realize what all is getting redone with the 380 Agreement, and they probably don't even care about it being a shopping center. (Did they organize against Target? Have they filed suit against Kroger yet?) They just care about the retail space being operated as a Wal-Mart. And that's just snobby ridiculousness.

Our agreement regarding the fugly townhomes owned by Urbano and Athans notwithstanding, Crowley-Reed and Baumgardner have not done justice to RUDH's mission of preserving the neighborhood by buying and occupying homes that were built in the 90's. By purchasing the homes that they live in (which were not threatened with demolition or decay), they had foregone an opportunity to preserve and protect the genuine article. How many hundreds of grand old homes have been demolished since their puchases? Is, "Preserve the 90's!" really so compelling a rallying cry? Since you're speaking to the thought processes of delusional NIMBY hypocrites whom I cannot begin to understand or sympathize with, clarification is necessary. What do you think "urbanism" means in their fairy world?

Can someone who lives up there post some photos? You know how us HAIFers need our crane porn.

And here are another three officers of the organization that I have identified by utilizing information and documents that are a matter of public record. It seems that they also enjoy lifestyles that are inconsistent with their organization's stated objectives. Nicholas Urbano, Director 4221 Kohler Street, Houston, Texas 77007 It seems that Mr. Urbano is the first individual listed on the registration documents for RUDH, which are a matter of public record. I was able to find evidence of Mr. Urbano's business associations by way of the Texas Secretary of State's SOSDirect database, and was initially tempted to post that information. After all, it is public record. ...but that would be without tact. Never let it said that TheNiche is without tact. Also of interest is that RUDH's Certificate of Formation describes its purposes as follows: "This organization is 501c4 community association devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Huoston Heights and West End neighborhoods by representing the community before local government and educating the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community." I'm curious as to how Mr. Urbano's ugly new townhome fits into the scheme of this organization! Eileen T. Crowley-Reed, Director 1315 Corlandt St., Houston, TX 77008 According to public record (SOS Direct), she started several companies at her place of residence (one at a time), then shut them down several years later. Information about them, including her contact information is all a matter of public record. This individual purchased her home when it was brand spankin' new. Thankfully, (although she may be shut off from the world by iron fences and gates) it isn't fugly like her fellow activists' domiciles. All the same, there's no shortage of older homes that needed TLC in her neighborhood. She has done nothing in her personal life that would advance the organization's cause and I fail to see why she merits being appointed a director. Anne G. Baumgardner, Director 507 Highland Street, Houston, TX 77009 This one also showed up in the public record (SOS Direct). Hers is the least aesthetically despicable house in my opinion, but it was still built in the 90's. It is hardly historic. Prior to living there, she and her husband lived at 1012 Bayland Street in a home remodeled by the previous owner prior to sale. It's amazing that not a single (known) member of an organization dedicated to preserving the neighborhood is known to have actively preserved anything. They're all talk, no sweat.

[dislike]

Not without political buy-in. It would require a fairly substantial programmatic and responsibly-administered subsidy to achieve the vision within any reasonable time horizon. To that end, fanciful sketches and the glowing recommendations of bought-and-paid-for economic consultants make for the best possible ammunition. (And Red is right that the Downtown Mgt. District has lots of money...but not enough to go it alone.) If patience isn't an issue, then all it takes are some draconian land use restrictions and lots of time. And even under these circumstances...projects like Victory in Dallas and our own experiences with Houston Pavilions have demonstrated that ground-level retail can't be force-fed. The number of vacant storefronts would be substantial. Many people think that what is above retail supports the retail, but that's true only to a very limited extent. It takes a critical mass for that to occur. I once calculated that at a minimum, it would take a quarter-mile radial area comprised of homogenous 22-story apartment towers with ground-floor retail (and structured parking, not included in the story count) in order for those storefronts to be self-sufficient from a market perspective. Obviously, what is envisioned for east Downtown does not have to be completely self-sustaining to be worthwhile, but it does give some perspective as to the nature of the challenge.

Fantasize all you like, by all means! Please. The world needs it. Just recognize that a sketch is not a social contract.

I kind of like it bizzare, to be honest. I only wish that they'd do a better job with bird control. As for the downtown plans, I only hope that people understand that the difference between a sketch as a vision, a plan as a framework, and a financially feasible proposal.

Toll roads make money and provide a price mechanism to manage congestion. The latter issue requires economic analysis in dollar denominations to quantify the benefit even though the savings are less tangible, the opportunity cost of time. Similar analytic techniques can be used for rail, but they are not typically favorable to rail (as we think of it). I would propose that human proximity in terms of the opportunity cost of time is valuable enough that high speed rail as it is currently being contemplated should be dismissed in favor of the kind of transit that makes a Houston-Dallas trip accomplished with no greater inconvenience than a commute between The Woodlands and downtown Houston. It would be expensive, but joining the four big Texas cities as such would create a situation where just about as many people were within a reasonable time from one another as they currently are in the New York City metropolitan area...but with the low real estate prices and business-friendliness of Texas. It'll never happen, obviously.

Montgomey County has nearly seven times the population of Walker County, and whereas Walker County is stagnant, Montgomery County adds the population of Walker County about every five to seven years. **** Walker County.

Has the entity been harmed by the unlawful application of a 380 Agreement? This entity has basically no assets or operating revenue, and even if it did, their assets and revenues would be unaffected. The organization has no corporeal existance; it has no psyche; and so claims related to its health or mental anguish won't stick. If it cannot be harmed by the unlawful application of a 380 Agreement, then it has no standing. Let's say that the organization had an asset on Kohler Street that would have to be taken by eminent domain in order to expand and repave the street. Then the organization has standing to either sue for a restraining order (if the relevant portion of the project is unlawful) or the recovery of the market value of those assets (if the relevant portion of the project is lawful). The purpose of a lawsuit is to make the plantiff whole...not society at large. RUDH suspects that campaign contributions and procedural breaches in the 380 agreement process are an indication of cronyism. The evidence is largely circumstantial. The two parties that could make a big stink out of this are the City and Ainbinder, but even if there were procedural breaches in spots, one of them would have to be in disagreement with one another before a lawsuit would be filed between them. A citizen that is materially harmed by the City and Ainbinder having unlawfully implemented a 380 Agreement could make a stink about it, but a legal victory on the part of the citizen as to a restraining order would only stall for time so that the t's could be crossed and the i's dotted before everything resumed as planned. (If you can stall until a new mayor gets elected...who knows?) If there is evidence supporting the accusation of cronyism, then RUDH should file a complaint with the Attorney General's office. That's what they're there for. ***DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I AM PROBABLY WRONG. DO NOT ACT UPON WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.***

Its time for another happy hour.

From RUDH's website, "In the lawsuit, RUDH alleges that the 380 Agreement with Ainbinder Heights LLC does not promote economic development, as required by the Texas Local Government Code." In order to be aggrieved, RUDH would need to be affected in some way. They are not a taxpayer, a resident, or even a participant in the local economy. RUDH has nothing to lose from the 380 Agreement. Its members might plausibly have a dog in the fight as individuals. The organization as an entity does not; it cannot even potentially suffer a loss from which this lawsuit might make it whole.