heights

I love how this "study" compares the proposed 380 agreement with the incentives that governmental entities sometimes use to entice firms to relocate. Fortunately most of us here realize that they are not the same thing.

The relocation type incentives do indeed sometimes involve taxpayer outlays for accommodations to convince the company to move to a location. For example, these are some of the incentives that the city of Chicago offered to get Boeing to relocate their headquarters:

Local: $20 million.

• Although its space is leased, Boeing will receive some $1 million a year in property tax abatements over the next 20 years.

Other: $2 million (est.)

• The city will contribute another $1 million to retire the lease of Rohm and Haas, an existing tenant in the 100 N. Riverside space that Boeing will occupy.

• The city will help pay for improvements at Midway Airport's hangars that are intended to improve the efficiencies of Boeing's Chicago operations.

The 380 agreement is nothing like this -- Ainbinder is actually going to PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY PROPERTY, some which are already needed (meat) and some which will enhance the quality of life in the area (gravy). The City is getting an interest-free loan on that money.

So the Anti-Walmart folks are so hellbent on preventing the rest of us from shopping at the Walmart that they deliberately mischaracterize the 380 agreement as a "giveaway" of taxpayer money to a deep-pocketed developer and a big-bad multinational corporation.

Well, here's the "economic impact study" that the Anti-Walmart folks paid for and whaddaya know: the study concludes that there should not be a Walmart there.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Heights+WM+Final.pdf

And their data isn't even accurate. They show a Walmart Supercenter around the East Freeway and Lockwood, which there is not. So they operate about like s3mh -- just make up "facts" to match whatever opinions you choose to broadcast.

Your right to the tax abatement has vested. The City cannot apply laws retroactively. You should be able to safely vote to crush all the bungalows, but might want to have a word with an attorney to be sure the City can't take away your abatement.

And the fact that you are willing to reap the benefits of the historic ordinance but do not want the ordinance to do what it is supposed to do (protect historic buildings) is not very neighborly.

Which is it? "The City cannot apply laws retroactively" or "you might want to have a word with an attorney to be sure"?

That's the problem with you. You spout whatever "facts" you want to support your cause(s) without ever being able to back them up.

I was also pretty happy to hear about the restoration of the bridge over the bayou on Heights. I'd love to see that bridge appropriately restored.

Well, didn't they restore the Heights bridge with all the nice columns and lights about 10 years ago? Many of the lights were subsequently destroyed and are still in disrepair. I imagine the removal of the apartment complex right there may fix part of that problem though. <Wearing teflon suit to prevent damage from incoming flames for that comment>

Someone has been spotted in a white pickup truck taking Walmart signs. Many have reported having their signs stolen.

City Ordinance prohibits the placement of any sign on City of Houston right-of-way without permission from the city. Any "bandit" sign placed in the right-of-way (generally between the sidewalk and the street) even in front of your own house, may be treated as litter and may be removed and disposed of by any citizen.

It's hard to tell, but lining this up with google maps, is dirt bar part of this deal? Not that I really care, I mean overpriced drinks at a place that's trying to be a dive bar with coke heads all over isn't really my thing, but I have a few friends that love the place.

From this view you can definitely see that Dirt Bar bites the dirt. It's interesting that these views don't show the other stuff between Yale/Heights being developed. I guess you are right that it must belong to a different developer. I do like the rendering view that looks from NE to SW towards the Walmart with the intersection of Heights/Koehler in the foreground. It looks a heck of a lot better than that same view would look now.

http://washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html

Latest Site Plan (at least the Walmart part):

http://washingtonhei.../site_plan.html

And renderings (there are several different views if you click the icons at the right side of the picture):

http://washingtonhei...renderings.html

Some more info with an overlay view:

http://washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html

That walmart is on a 5-7 lane road in the middle of a heavy commercial area. That part of Honolulu may be dense, but there is no comparison in terms of population: http://www.infopleas...l#axzz0xYj7CVh1

The proposed Heights Walmart is on a 4 lane road, barely 1/10th of a mile from a frontage road, less than a mile from a school crossing in the Heights, directly abutting a residential neighborhood and less than a half mile from the beginning of the residential areas of the Heights. If you think putting a Walmart on Honolulu's version of Westheimer is the same as putting it on Yale, then why not put a Walmart on W. 19th.

As with so many of your previous posts, you have not allowed facts to interfere with your theories:

The 2-Story Walmart/Sam's Club at 700 Keeaumoku Street is bounded by four streets. The largest street (Keeaumoku) is only 3 lanes in each direction. The other three streets (Makaloa, Sheridan, and Rycroft) are only 1 lane in each direction!

According to http://demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm Honolulu's population density is MUCH HIGHER than that of Houston. Honolulu's is 4659.8/sq mile and Houston's is 2951.1/sq mile.

The Honolulu Walmart is directly abutting a residential area to the northwest, is one half mile from a major interstate, 3/10 of a mile from not one but two schools with lots of crosswalks, and is one mile from Waikiki Beach.

So what is your point anyway?? If you are going to try to put up some reasoning for why you think the proposed Walmart is a bad idea, at least use some relevant information and try to find some facts to back up your opinions.

The other option would be for you to just admit the truth: You hate Walmart and the people that shop there because you think you are better then they are.

You are right. We do not live in a small down. We live in a very dense urban environment. The supercenter concept was designed to be put on the outskirts of town where land is very cheap and there was minimal demands on roadways. [...]

Supercenters are suburban stores and are not compatible with urban life.

Gosh, I think somewhere early in this thread I posted about the Walmart AND Sam's Club smack dab in the middle of Honolulu, which is a heck of a lot more dense than Houston. When I visited, both stores seemed to be thriving and none of the fancy tourist traps on KLAKALKALKALAKALKALKALAKALAKLAKAKLAKA Boulevard had been put out of business!

I am not afraid to say that I am in favor of the Walmart. I like to shop at Walmart because they often have all of the varied items that I need, which saves me from going multiple places. They also usually have a good price compared to other stores. I take solace in knowing that no matter how much the NIMBY's jump up and down and get red in the face screaming about how awful they think Walmart is, the Walmart will still get built.

I think the best course of action for those of us that are not anti-Walmart is to reach out to Walmart and the developer and make suggestions about how we think the project can fit into the area around our neighborhood. We can keep our campaign positive. Perhaps Walmart will see that we are somewhat silent supporters and we can benefit by helping shape a store that better meets our needs.

When the store is completed, we can enjoy shopping there and the anti-Walmart folks can enjoy driving all over town and spending either more time or more money (or both) to get what they need.

...don't think so - it will be the kiss of death for any local business to be there if the proposed Wal-Mart is built there. Wal-Mart cooties are hard to wash off and anyone that shops there probably feels like taking a shower afterward. I love Spec's -but if the proposed Wal-Mart is built and Spec's opens a store there - I will not patronize any of their stores.

I can't figure out if there is sarcasm in your post. If there is not, I hope you go back to Cleveland so you don't get cooties from driving past on Yale as I come out from shopping at my new Walmart.

A Chron business section article that includes info about the proposed Walmart:

http://www.chron.com...ff/7164681.html

Shepherd at 14th, is that close enough?

I'm still pulling for an indoor rock gym and a Spec's, since they closed the other one.

It looks like there is a daycare facility in the West End Multi-Service center on the east side of Heights Blvd (Is that place even still open?) so Spec's might be a little gun-shy about the "prohibited distance" crap that sunk their other location.

Can they really pick and choose like that? I wouldn't think so, so let's just expect a verizon store, mattress store, check cashing place, and some crappy asian chain restaurant.

Don't forget Payless Shoes!

To be fair, many Democrats dislike SJL in the same way many Republicans dislike Rick Perry.

I can't for the life of me figure out how she keeps getting re-elected. I vote for whomever is running against her. I think I voted for Big Bird one time.

More info, courtesy of Swamplot:

http://swamplot.com/west-end-walmart-developer-promises-more-browns-and-greens/2010-08-20/

I was in New Orleans last weekend and went to the St. Mary St. Wal-Mart in the Lower Garden District, although technically it was in the industrial waterfront. Place was packed. The area around it was blighted before and was perceivably still blighted but provides the poorer areas of Central City, the Treme, and anybody else in the city with affordable wares.

I guess the opposition should ask themselves If New Orleans can do it, why can't Houston?

This is exactly what the NIMBY's want to avoid -- providing a place for poor people to congregate, lest it might wear off on them!

Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Your post has been reported to the moderators.

Since you decided to use the term "Ad hominem" in not just one post, but two, you might want to see if the "attacks" actually fit the definition of Ad hominem attacks (they didn't). From http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html you'll see that "The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there." There are plenty of examples if you follow that link or research the term elsewhere.

The 90 day waiver did very little to keep builders from demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with monster mansions and overbuilt clusters of townhomes. Deed restrictions and landmarking did nothing to prevent the destruction of historic homes.

The minimum setback and minimum lot size restrictions could prevent much of this and they are already available -- and they definitely don't tell me how to hang my toilet paper.

http://blogs.houston...lmart_video.php

i'm not sure this has been posted before but check out this ad i found.

Well, I can say one thing about the whole Walmart controversy: It has given the rest of Houston the idea that we in the Heights are just a bunch of snobby NIMBY's. I guess that's one part of the Heights image that the anti-Walmart people aren't concerned about.

Maybe someone can help me answer this question. I live between Heights and Oxford and between 14th and 20th streets. My lot is deed restricted only for Minimum Setback and Minimum Lot Size. I am not subject to the Houston Heights Association Deed Restrictions as listed on the HHA web site:

http://www.houstonhe...dproperties.htm

As I recall, I intentionally didn't sign up for the HHA deed restrictions, though most of my neighbors did.

My understanding is that I am part of one of the Heights Historic Districts and as such I was subject to the now-suspended 90-day rule and would be subject to Lovell & Co's more draconian restrictions if they pass. What purpose do the HHA deed restrictions serve in light of the Historic District stuff?

Thanks.

I just got a phone call doing a survey about the proposed Walmart. I couldn't really tell from the questions whether it was sponsored by the "pro-Walmart" or "anti-Walmart" movement.

Here's a proposed drawing that was apparently done by Peter Brown as a suggestion for the developers. Remember, this is just the informational thread -- please post comments in the "other" Walmart thread. For some reason I have trouble posting attachments, but I'll give it a shot.

Not sure what is going on with the file - here is an image of it:

Thanks, the new pic works. I am going to cross post it in the "Non-Confrontational Wal-Mart Information" Thread if you don't mind.

It does look like they would be a little short on parking for a Wal-mart Supercenter.

It's tough to get worked up about anything on Facebook unless your entire point-of-view can be summarized with the letters O, M and G.

my less evolved Facebook "friends" were reposting links to a couple Facebook fanpages titled something dumb like "I Bet We Can Get One Million People to Support Banning the Teaching of Evolution in School" and "I Bet We Can Get One Million People to Say Global Warming is a Hoax". And you know what? If I recall correctly, both of those fanpages were pretty close to achieving their membership goal.

I Bet We Can Get Betty White to Host Saturday Night Live!