TheNiche

The PDF is not encouraging. Essentially, they have a MUD set up that might finance the infrastructure by levying an additional property tax over and above what any adjoining tracts of land have to pay in taxes, and they have no commitment from the City or County (although the possibility exists, as it always does, everywhere) that they might allow some offsetting tax abatement. (Consider that the developer of a $30MM property is already paying $750,000 per year in taxes; what is their incentive to pay $1,000,000? It doesn't make sense. Not unless the land is free...and even then! Almost as bad, the document looks like copy that their out-of-town consultant put together.

You don't know what you're talking about. 1) The extent of the City limits largely preclude the possibility of new greenfield development except in areas that have been stunted by blight for decades. 2) It is the City's effective policy to annex any commercial property that gets built in their ETJ, but not residential neighborhoods; this is to tax non-voters on the value of the property and to obtain sales taxes from residents to whom the City is not required to provide services. 3) Furthermore, when a developer comes along with a plan for a decent-sized subdivision in a part of the incorporated City that does not have infrastructure, the City's policy is to make the developer form a new in-City municipal utility district. In so doing, the City taxes the new subdivision to pay for everyone else's infrastructure, then makes them also pay for their own infrastructure on their own.

Wow, first y'all jumped the White Oak Bayou to get at the Wal-Mart, now you're jumping Buffalo Bayou to get at the Whole Foods on Dallas Street. Meanwhile, Realtors have jumped 610 to the north and swallowed up Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. At its furthest extent, the Heights is now about 8 miles wide, which is about as wide as the length of the West Loop, to put it all in perspective. The Heights is the neighborhood that swallowed Houston. Montrosians and East Enders should depict that sentiment on yard signs. Maybe the signs could be yellow and feature an anthropomorphised McVictorian that's out to terrorize them!

I don't know what you mean by "strong public and private sector". That phrase has no meaning and can be spun rhetorically however I so choose. The City of Houston doesn't have any say over new exurban or master planned communities, and even when we had the ability to threaten The Woodlands with annexation, they flinched and ended up paying us tribute in order to avoid our wrath...even though it didn't make financial sense for us to annex them in the first place. We got the better end of the deal, so I don't really understand where you're coming from on this. Suggesting that we give government more scrutiny is self-defeating. The people interesting in scrutinizing are already doing so, but most people aren't interesting in listening to the lurid stories, really at all. And what it comes down to is that the City didn't let Wulfe get away with the Gulfgate 380; the people let it happen. They're like that. Real estate finance is complex and beyond the comprehension of most people, even intelligent people, if and when they become aware of it. And that is why government powers must be reeled in. It's because constituents are incapable of identifying and punishing deliberate cronyism. It isn't enough that you acknowledge the problem and decree an end to it. And even if you ruled the world and everybody trusted you, you'd eventually die and your successor would screw it up again. And that is why hard-and-fast limitations on government powers are often the way to go. And perhaps nowhere is that more true than a big city, chock full of unknown bigshots.

I'm all for outdoor advertising. Our sign ordinances are far too strict. The more dynamically-lit billboards, the better! But that serves a purpose, which is to enhance brand awareness and loyalty while generating revenue for owners of commercial property. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and some of your examples are of cities that profit from it themselves. To that end, I think that downtown and other parts of town are poorly lit. But I cited Victory in Dallas for several reasons. Firstly, it is a good example of gimmickry, and because it is a city nearby that is similar in terms of climate and urban geography, it probably serves as a more common frame of reference than somewhere like Sapporo. Also...this is subject matter that has already been argued on multiple threads of HAIF for years and years, and Dallas is always a datapoint. As for PPPs, I'm against them. There's too much opportunity for abuse of power and/or incompetence to cost the City millions upon millions of dollars. Have you researched the various 380 Agreements? As much as the Heights crowd complains about the Ainbinder agreement, there are other agreements that make Ainbinder's look like a model of success by comparison. They basically handed Ed Wulfe a $2 million check on the Gulfgate deal, which received no press. Again, in general, the public sector just needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY. Regulate and tax if they must, but GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Although I disagree with C2H that gimmicky lighting has any effect really at all on retail sales (and I cite Dallas' Victory as evidence of that), and although I do make fun of people that are intimidated by the homeless or that imply a willingness to try and displace them, I have to say...they do scare people off and suppress sales. Its just true. There's no getting around it. Its hard to say which is the greater problem, that consumers are easily intimidated or that the homeless exist, but neither circumstance is likely to change as a result of anything we can say or do on this forum. One of the stories that I tried to tell (twice, and which keeps getting censored by the moderators), is that I made a girl that was with me cry once by refusing to give a "devoutly christian" homeless guy money for a "sandwich" at midnight. So yeah, I get where Nick_G is coming from. There are parts of downtown where a guy just can't walk around with a girl without getting hassled by a vagrant that thinks he has social leverage in the situation. And often, they do have leverage. My dining-out habits reflect the possibility that a date might be put off by an encounter with them. (So yes, overly-zealous moderators, the homeless are relevant to Houston Pavilions being in Trouble, which is the topic of this thread, and my experiences and input are on-topic and relate to that issue. You don't have to like me, but quit messing with me!)

Am I restricted from this thread? I've written out three diplomatically-worded responses to the post deletions, and it seems that all of them have been deleted. Do I need to start a new thread about this?

Define "we". I live in the Museum District, not the Katy Prairie. I am not "they". The only local jurisdictional overlap I have with "them" is Harris County, and even then, most of "them" would rather move out of my county than to my neighborhood if the choice were forced. Which should be just as well, because (if you sincerely want progressive property taxation and more light rail) I suspect that you'd rather that "they" elect "their" own government officials rather than yours. Live and let live, dude. If you want people to be more like you, you have to understand that it is their choice. You can't force them. They have to come to your way of thinking.

I find it fascinating how much effort you put into communicating so ineffectively. You state that homelessness is a problem but reject any solution that might address the issue, then claim that "planning" is the root problem and a solution, that downtown is now being planned (which it is, but not in any binding form or fashion, only barely as believable as the mid-century plan that the Gulf Freeway should've been our Uptown), and then you assert normative and unassailable beliefs that downtown is some kind of sacred ground. Everything you've said is baseless.

The answer to your question is that Whitestone Houston Land is a bankrupted entity, whose plan is to void the equity stake of all of the investors up to this point. If EMCID wants to inject fresh capital, then they can keep the entity going and effectively take control of the entity...but they'll still have to pay debt service, or there'll just be another bankruptcy, probably Chapter 7 on the second go-round. Frank McCrady's optimism is the rational action of an investor in an entity that is fighting a motion by creditors to convert a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation). It may or may not be genuine. We do not know.

An above- or below-grade line would seem to have made more sense in areas such as downtown and the TMC, although, admittedly the obliteration of pre-existing skywalks and tunnels would've been an issue.

First thing's first. I am not an attorney, merely someone experienced in the development of commercial real estate. I once contemplated and researched a Chapter 11 filing, but didn't have to go through with it (thank goodness!) and since then, I've evaluated several bankruptcy situations for their investment potential. I'm no expert (and nobody should rely upon my comments for business or investment purposes), but I am an experienced professional. You are not. I shall ply myself with the equivalent of three shots of gin, then two beers and a pizza during the analysis, just to keep our debate lively and on a level playing field. The lender's claim that the land is worth $10 million is probably valid, albeit with a fairly significant margin for error. Most of the large-tract land sales that have been taking place in the northeast and east parts of the metropolitan area for the prior several years have been consumated at the courthouse steps or otherwise under duress. The volume of valid transactions is minimal. It's hard to tell what the market value is for lack of data. The appraiser was likely working from a liquidation value perspective rather than attempting to estimate a going concern value provided a reasonable and appropriate time for marketing the property...which could be several years in this instance. Without reading the appraisal, however, it is impossible for you or I to know what its scope was or what the assumptions were. The appraiser's client, the creditor, defined them in the engagement contract, and most likely in such a way as would benefit them the most. Whitestone Land's first plan for reorganization was filed in October 2011. The article was written in January 2012. Circumstances do change over a period of three to four months. If the new equity investor, possibly Contour, is able to provide a fresh infusion of capital to the venture under the provisions of the Chapter 11 reorganization plan, then debt service can be paid to creditors. All parties should like that, and if the new equity investor were to fail at some point, then the venture would re-enter bankruptcy and be disolved in the future. Presumably, future land values will be higher than present land values; so again, all parties should like that. In fact, as long as the creditors are getting paid on more than just the liquidation value ($10 million divided many ways), for any amount of time, then they should favor that outcome. That is the purpose of Chapter 11 is to maximize the return to the creditors. That said...if the creditors didn't think that there was any likelihood of a new equity investor jumping in when they filed to convert to Chapter 7, then they would be acting reasonably, within their rights, and according to the spirit of the law. To a large extent, the debate over whether a startup venture is subject to bankruptcy protections has to do with the momentum that it has going for it. This is mostly subjective, and (myself, not having reviewed case law) should hinge primarily upon the market value of goodwill established by the debtor. In accounting terms, any amount of market value that the debtor's entity has over and above the liquidation value of their tangible assets is that goodwill. And having expended as much money on marketing, political consulting, planning, etc., as they have, it is entirely likely that goodwill does exist. These concepts are...complicated and uncertain. But banks don't like complication or uncertainty, and plantiffs positively love making the worst of circumstances. It is possible that they're just trying to strongarm the debtor by leveraging a less-than-credible threat. So the bottom line is that there are more unknowns than there are knows, from our lowly perspectives as spectators. Its a ____ed up sport; the rules are too complex, too opaque, and may or may not make sense. My contribution to this thread is to point out that none of us have anything meaningful to contribute. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. I know that we've got a former bankruptcy attorney somewhere on HAIF. If he'd like to chime in and tell me how horrifyingly wrong I am, that would be appreciated.

That's unacceptable.

Not meaning to be crass by the earlier comment. ...just some friendly advice to whomever might post insider information.

Hey, so in the future, you should either leak your tips to a reputable journalist or wait a few days before leaking it on HAIF (without any namedropping). You never know who reads these things, and some folks like to play it close to the vest. Gotta be careful.

Only 87 of those 8,027 firearms deaths were unintentional, and only an additional 75 had an undetermined intent. Someone that intended to commit suicide and was successful at it was not on the "wrong" end of their own gun. They used the tool properly to carry out their own personal wish. Its also important to point out, I think, that many crimes are committed within an extended family or between neighbors, friends, or business associates. "Stranger danger" is exaggerated.

That's why Heights Yankees shouldn't own guns. I've got an airsoft rifle and a bayonet that I'll sell her, though, if she likes. Picked it up due to roommates being uncomfortable with the shotgun around. It's very family-friendly. I could say the same about the Heights anti-Wal-Mart movement. But at the end of the day, I know that (for most people) guns and community activism are each recreational hobbies as much as anything. I'd like to think that mine has fewer anti-social repercussions than yours, however.

If someone has forcibly entered my domicile without my consent, and I am there, and I do not know whether that person is armed, then I do "need" a weapon. Whether government is good, bad, or somewhere along that spectrum makes no difference; police response times are inconsistent. Under these circumstances, a $200 shotgun is a fantastic augment to one's contracted insurance policies.

Unless your shotgun has a much shorter barrel length than is legal, I'm guessing that he's never fired it at a paper target at close distance. The grouping of pellets at any meaningful interior distance is still so tight that you must still aim. Firing blindly into the dark is dangerous, irresponsible, and likely ineffective. Shotguns are still a home defense weapon of choice, but primarily because you can use ammunition with poor wall penetration, like birdshot or smaller-diameter buckshot. I recommend #1 buckshot for your situation. It'll probably penetrate a sheetrock wall, but probably won't penetrate your exterior walls and retain much destructive power. And don't forget that you are responsible for any collateral damage caused by a bullet that you fire from your house that leaves your house. If you are a gun owner, you should be a responsible gun owner. Try taking a gun safety course, whether sponsored by the NRA or not. Being competent and confident about the use of a defensive tool is what makes it effective; otherwise, you're probably better without.

AWP are like Baskin Robbin's 31 Flavors. It takes all kinds.

Surely you didn't. Socially-concious as y'all are, no Heights resident would put that kind of sentiment out there so flagrantly. Its simply not plausible because you know that a Woodlander could've picked up on the possibility that they might be able to smear you by quoting your statement out of context, knowing all the while that it wasn't your intention. Angry white people, regardless of physical configuration or political affiliation, are cannibalistic birds of a feather. They flock together, then pick each other apart, viciously.

The neighborhood is just fine, physically speaking. So is The Woodlands. What I hate are highly-insulated subcultures of similarly-obnoxious people, especially when as generational breeding cycles kick in. By my observation, affluent obnoxious people have a greater wherewithall to actualize and then mass-communicate their smug preferences, and so the criticisms that I am leveling at the Heights and The Woodlands are several orders of magnitude greater than what I might level at, say, Pasadena or even Spring. It is also notable that my 'hate-on' diminishes with distance. So right now, at this moment, I do not care about Austin or College Station, even if they are highly deserving of criticism. It is also notable that I have a respect for differently-obnoxious people, such as seem to gravitate toward the East End and Third Ward.

The cultural differences are only skin-deep, not that much greater than the difference between buying a silver car or buying a beige car. Yeah, but how many Trader Joes would get built on eleven acres? With or without a Wal-Mart, there will be something, and there will be traffic. The only differences as far as neighborhood impact or desirability are qualitative (i.e. Are the shoppers predominantly white or brown? Are the shoppers predominantly rich or poor? That kind of thing. And I for one, don't care.)

I would argue that the purpose of student athletics is primarily to enhance the brand awareness among prospective students in the short term and brand loyalty among alumni in the long term. Football is particularly effective at marketing a university to out-of-state and international students that otherwise would be completely unfamiliar with a school that has traditionally had only a regional draw and a more regionally-limited diaspora; but even a girls' volleyball team, paraded around the Chinese countryside, can drum up a surprising number of applications. These students pay higher tuition rates, which helps the school indirectly, but immediately. And from a larger pool of applicants, the student body quality will increase as well, which in turn leads to greater prestige, and prestige results in even more applications, easier hiring of better professors, a warmer reception from employers of the school's graduates, and a wealthier and more proud alumni base. In the very long term, that alumni base will reward the school with charitable donations and also with generational loyalty. To the extent that UH Football will now receive additional television air time, it is important to craft the appropriate image. When the camera tilts upward to view the stands, nobody is counting how many rows there are of seats, but they certainly notice whether those seats are occupied. And when there are empty stands (like at the TicketCity Bowl game), it communicates the wrong message. For most games, 40,000 seats is plenty. It'll probably be a long while before we can fill 60,000, even for the most highly anticipated of games; and if we need more than that for some special event, there's Reliant Stadium. UH is just starting out, really. It could increase the student population to match or even exceed that of UT-Austin, but it still wouldn't be of like-kind. It'll take a while. Perhaps, a long while. In the meantime, where very-big stadium capacities are concerned, it is better to lease than to own.

I, too, hope that the Heights (or somewhere close enough that the Heights can rhetorically annex the location) gets a Trader Joe's. Thereafter, I can mockingly congradulate them for being more Woodlands-icious than ever before.