Marksmu

Saw a trailer and some excavation equipment showed up on the Wal Mart side of the road yesterday....looks like they are about to start work. Can't wait to get the new WalMart - I hope it has a big gun selection!!

I am going to buy s3mh a Wal-Mart gift card when the new Heights Wal-Mart opens. Anyone else want to contribute?

I think Walmart is paying S3MH say outlandish things she knows are ridiculous and stupid so that their store stays in the news and on peoples minds....for every 1 person who dislikes Walmart, there are 3 more who will shop there....so the more they are talked about the better it is for them! S3MH is probably getting some kind of kickback...otherwise there is no reason to continue on with her ridiculous and frequently debunked arguments.

I drive over the bridge twice a day every day. I care about the bridge more than I care about Walmart. I don't blame Walmart for the City failing to enforce the load limitations on the bridge. I blame Walmart for putting a store that needs 7-9 18 wheelers a day in a place that does not have adequate access for 18 wheelers and for taking the benefit of 6 mil in tax payer dollars for improvements while ignoring the most important infrastructure upgrade needed. And it is not an issue of whether the City will or won't enforce it. It is an issue of whether the City should even need to enforce the limitation. The only sane solution is to upgrade the bridge to handle 18 wheeler traffic. Relying on cops to keep 18 wheelers off the bridge is no solution at all. All they can do is write a ticket AFTER the load limitation has been violated and AFTER the damage has been done. Walmart can build all the suburban sprawl, soul-sucking junk shops they want. But they damn well are not going to endanger me and my community and push off all the infrastructure upgrades on to my tax dollars. Any remotely responsible actor in the community would recognize the issue and be willing to shift the 6 mil from the 380 agreement to take care of the bridge. Thus, I do not need to do anything to make Walmart look evil. They handle that quite well for themselves.

You still seem unable to separate Ainbinder from Walmart....Walmart is doing nothing other than leasing space....Ainbinder is the entity that all of your rage should be directed towards....Walmart apparently is doing nothing more than leasing some space from someone...If the space is not adequate its not Walmarts responsibility to make it so, its the lessors job.

Walmart is very well know as one of the most penny pinching companies in the world. They would not send a $5 gift card out unless they were very serious about getting the recipient to become a shopper at the new Silber store. Add that to the fact that many getting the gift cards live way closer to the Heights location, and Walmart's business strategy is pretty clear. They want to saturate the Houston market and try to beat the competition not by having the best products at the best price (Target won recent price comparisons promiting a "we'll match competitors" campaign) or by having the better shopping experience (Walmart has lost customers to Dollar stores because they are much easier to get in and out of for purchases of weekly staples than Walmart), but by simply being everywhere. The Target at Sawyer will eventually be surrounded by four Walmarts (counting the proposed Wayside location). Even if Target at Sawyer beats the pants off Walmart on Yale, they will lose the war because Walmart will have a greater market share simply by having so many stores. Walmart has previously used its largesse to increase its profits on the supply side and is doing the same on the demand side.

You can hate Walmart all day long, but there is no doubt that as inflation rises, Walmart will be better positioned than any other retailer to leverage its size and buying abilities to keep prices lower than its competitors.

Have you seen the price of a Steak recently? A steak is up almost 50% from a year ago....Walmart will be able to eat some of that cost in order to offer it cheaper than their consumers. They do this constantly...more stores, more saturation. Fortunately for Houston, there is enough competition that Walmarts business plan will never shut down all the competition....but your hatred of Walmart will have you paying more for your food than if you shopped elsewhere.

Target may be cheaper now, but its unlikely they will be able to eat the inflation that is coming down the food lines as well as Walmart. I am getting almost 50% more for my live cows this year than I did last year at the auction....I can tell you right now that the feed lot is not going to take a lower profit margin, and the shipping is more expensive thanks to higher fuel prices...add to that our brilliant ethanol usage which drives up feed costs and reduces mpg and there is simply no possible way that food prices are not going to rise even higher.

Walmart is well positioned to take advantage of that exact scenario....when times are good people dont bargain shop nearly as much as they do when times are tight. This is a good scenario for Walmart....

I am not wrong more often than not. I just take a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing pro-developer/anti-preservation view that is prevalent on this message board. Thus, plenty of people say things that are completely wrong (HAHC being able to control political content of yard signs--actual post in Historic Ordinance thread) and get a pass. But, I make a reasonable argument/observation (Bungalows in good condition at a certain price point sell quickly in the Heights) based on my personal experience of being in the market for over two years (and friends being in the market for another year beyond that), and I get a pile of responses because I do not share the anti-preservation view. Just because my arguments and observations start a debate doesn't mean that they are invalid. I do not have to post links to every sale of a bungalow in the Heights just because someone knows of an overpriced bungalow with a horrible rennovation that won't move. And I do not have to see a link to the bungalow that won't move and won't call that person a liar for not posting one because it is just an argument on a message board. Many who are pro-preservation and/or anti-Walmart have been bullied off this message board by people who pick apart their posts and call them all kinds of names. Debate is what makes message boards interesting. I am all for that. But discounting opposing viewpoints as being invalid because they do not share the prevailing bias is lame.

AGAIN with the political yard sign issue....have you not beat that horse to death yet? There are no fewer than 10 posts telling you that it was sarcastic and done with the intent to get a rise out of people, but you keep bringing it up.

And you actually ARE wrong more often that you are right, and 99.9% of the times when you are wrong and then someone proves you are wrong with facts and petty things like supporting evidence, you make no response, and then 5 posts later you repeat the same factual inaccuracy. It is frustrating beyond belief, because you seem to want debate, as long as the momentum of the debate is on your side. When the tides change, you no longer debate, you just ignore...that is not debating. It is sticking your head in the sand.

Nobody believes a liar even when he is telling the truth. That is why nobody believes you. Everything you say about Walmart may be true, but considering how often you were either lying or just completely wrong in the historic thread, it is not a giant leap to figure out why nobody believes you about walmart either...except for those people who obviously share your hatred of walmart....they might believe the sky is falling as long as we could blame Walmart.

The 8 to 7 vote was:

In Favor:

Parker

Lovell

Noriega

Huang

Rodriguez

Costello and of course

Gonzalez

I am surprised to see that Huang voted in favor of the ordinance; he seemed to have realized that there were major flaws with it in previous council meetings.

I am however very relieved to see that council is at the very least paying attention to the people! What comes now is going to be interesting....I do not know what the planning department is going to do with it? The planning folks do not want to change it, they have already recommended adopting it in its entirety. Hopefully a real yes/no vote can actually be had that is all I really want.

I would absolutely love to see the real support for this ordinance. I would gladly walk away saying I have been outvoted if they can prove to me that they have 66% of the property without including the city owned properties in their support. They do not have it...they do not even have 51% as originally required. So what comes next is sure to be more partisan politics.

A win for the anti-ordinance crowd for sure. Where it goes from here I anxiously await.

This is a complete fabrication. The changes to the historic ordinance were NOT driven by the neighborhood. The initial ordinance was driven by the neighborhood, but comparing the original to the new ordinance is at best a joke. Our elected officials did vote for it, and as such have misrepresented their constituents. I guess you point out that blue signs were in front of vacant lots because you don't think the owners of land get to voice an opinion?

You hit the nail on the head. The original ordinance with the 90 day wait, that required the HAHC to make suggestions, was palatable, because you could still do what you liked to your own property in due time. The city & your neighbors had an opportunity to offer alternatives, and suggestions, and you had the legal right to say nope...and do what you want. That is community driven.

That is how it SHOULD work....and that is where the actual support was! Once the no means no was added and the HAHC has to approve everything, the support became less than 35% of homeowners, and the city knew it. That is precisely why they wont allow a real vote. The change to the ordinance was material, that is why they offered the "unprecedented" option to withdraw.....they just offered the option in a way and a time that they knew with near 100% certainty they would prevail.

Our elected officials have failed us, because they have their pretentious head so far up their anus they cant see anything at all, just like most of the ordinance supporters.

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word.

We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me.

Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

There is absolutely no legitimate argument that can be made in support of the "survey" process for purposes of repeal.

Anyone who says that the "survey" process was legitimate is a liar...period.

Facts:

1. It took supporters of the ordinance YEARS to get to 51% and they cheated by using city owned property to do it.

2. It took opponents less than 30 days to get 10% to agree with them

3. An intentionally confusing "survey" was mailed during the holidays with a very short period of time for return still got nearly 25% in all districts

4. The "survey" was offered only in English, even though there is a substantial spanish speaking population

5. An un-returned survey counted as a vote in favor of the historic district (By far the most egregious insult to democracy I have ever witnessed)

6. Owners of more than 1 contiguous tract, did not get equal voting rights as a percentage of their land ownership.

7. The City used the Mayor and other taxpayer funded employees to fight the taxpayers.

8. No vote was ever taken to determine how many taxpayers actually Supported the districts.

9. No resurvey was ever conducted to determine if the signatures on the original petition still owned the property the city was counting as a vote in their favor.

That is not a legitimate process. It is the most illegitimate process I can even think of.

There is more, and if people can add to the list, I would like to compile as many problems with the survey process as possible....We can just re-post the list in response to the illegitimate arguments of S3MH....He/She will not be able to refute them with facts...only emotional arguments.

Here's one for you. I live in a historic district (HW), live in a historic bungalow which we renovated 4 years ago (before the stupidity). I even signed the original petition once our work was done, and went back to get a COA after the fact to qualify for the tax break. And I hate what has been done to me and to others who were duped. Heck, they even used our house as an EXAMPLE of what an acceptable addition is in their advertising during the debate. So, S3MH, am I anti-preservation??? Nope, anti-ordinance.

Did not mean to neg rep your post....

Did anyone watch the council battle yesterday over not just preservation but redistricting. The knives were out for Parker. She is very unpopular with her own council. Several of them, Clutterbuck and Adams in particular went for the jugular yesterday.

I think its item 18:

http://houstontx.cit...efid=03022011-3

Its the Mayor's report, not item 18.

Wong at 15:00 makes a great argument...that gifford, or whatever her name is makes it crystal clear....quoting roughhand, not exact...Gifford: "we do not need any of the property owners support to start a historic district"

That is truly a sad statement, and reflects the true arrogance of this administration.

Here is some hysterical language:

http://blogs.chron.c..._city_hall.html

Maybe CM Jones will be the anti-preservationist candidate for mayor.

I have a feeling that you and Jones have more in common than you have differences. Just because she is on the right side of an issue for once in her life does not make her a viable candidate for anything other than a Democrat controlled district.

The first revision to the ordinance had no change in the language about maintenance/repairs etc. But you all ran around claiming that the City would be able to control paint color, HVAC, and even content of political yard signs under the revised ordinance. This was not based on anything the City had ever done in the past, but pure speculation on reading the ordinance in a vacuum. So there was a case where the law had been practiced, and the anti-preservation people ignored the practice to try to scare people into believing that there was some intent on the part of the City that did not exist. This was largely the reason the anti-preservationists could barely get half the needed votes to do away with the historic districts. They had no good argument for allowing builders to run wild in the Heights and had to resort to scare tactics to try to fool people into believing that the ordinance would do all kinds of things it would not do. As a result, a big opportunity was lost to work together to create a better ordinance. A fast track procedure for minor changes would have been a great idea. But issues like that never came up because the vast majority of the dialog with the City was either all in or all out.

As noted above, the HAHC is perfectly reasonable. They have approved three new construction projects in the Heights in the past two sessions (two were 3500 sq ft houses). While lot value for a neglected bungalow will go down, the value of an empty lot looks to be going up ($320k asking price for a lot in the Heights East--probably 40-50k too high, but who knows). In the short run, the building boom in the historic districts will slow a bit as the McVic builders flee to the non-district areas. But that is good for the Heights too. Areas north of 20th and on the periphery of the districts will see more development than they would have without the ordinance. Inside the districts, there will never again be the horrific contemporary odd balls, monsterous fake New Orleans junk packed 4 to a 2 home lot and cruddy, oddball rennovations (closed in porches, goofy circular windows and other oddities that wreck the character of historic homes).

The Heights will be even better than ever under the Historic Ordinance. People looking to buy won't have to worry about what might go up next door anymore. People looking to rennovate won't have to worry about ending up with lot value after being surrounded by McVics. Crow all you want about how Eastwood is now better than the Heights because of the Historic Ordinance. Or about how the Heights are "stagnating" because someone thinks they can still get lot value (just saw a great bungalow on Columbia sell within a week of listing--some stagnation). Just like the claims about paint color and HVACs, the reality is nothing like what the anti-preservationists will ever be able to recognize.

So if the Ordinance was not originally designed to control paint color, why then did they have to go back and SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE IT?? Paint color control was allowed in the original draft and specifically excluded in the version that became law.

The anti-ordinance crowd is the only reason that was modified. If it were not for them, it would now be law that you have to ask some donkey's permission to change your house color! The government has an extremely poor track record on abuse of power and use of power for personal gains....I want them to have as little control over myself and my property as possible.

You support the ordinance because you perceive it to do what you want. But when there is a new government in power who does not agree with you any longer, how do you think you will feel when an ordinance is passed requiring you to tear down your old well maintained shack if any repair requiring a permit ever has to be made? After all a very good case can be made that the older well maintained shacks are huge fire hazards, and a danger to the public. Many have extremely old wiring without grounds, many have uninsulated aluminum wiring, they are old dry wood just ready for a match, none of them have the newer fire retardant drywall or other features that make the PUBLIC safer....you see where I am going? It does not take a huge imagination to come up with a reason that we the public can create to cause you to lose the rights on YOUR home....You got your way this time...but power is fickle...those who abuse it lose, and then the next administration comes in and usually goes to far in their efforts to undue the previous administrations problems.

Look to Washington. Everyone hated Bush, now we have something far worse, a polar opposite.....wait till 2012....if you are an Obama lover you are very likely to HATE the next president.....going too far always has repercussions.

You are thinking of the Kroger on 20th. There is a Subway in that development.

There is no Subway in Merchants Park, which is on 11th.

There is a subway at the Kroger on 11th and Shepherd....I don't know if that is Merchant's Park, but its new. Its only been there about 3 months, maybe.

There is one empty storefront between the new subway and the recently remodeled Kroger. Then the subway, and then an auto parts store, etc....working your way to the Chinese Buffet at the end.

I understand that you're opposed to this ordinance. If lies have been told or misrepresentations made, the specifics would do a lot towards persuading people to your point of view.

My comment regarded your repeated substitution of the word 'hysterical' for 'historical'; it puts me in mind of people who use terms like "Femi-Nazis".

Surely there are wittier and more convincing ways to make a point.

Sadly, when you point out the specifics and the EXACT wording of the ordinance to the preservationist crowd they call you a liar.

Then you quote the language, show how ambiguous it actually is, and how the HAHC can easily abuse the ordinance and its language, and they call you a liar again.

You can not win with these people...the truth is not persuasive...they do not care how they get what they want, or who they trample to get it...

When the truth, even a very clear bad truth, is not persuasive people naturally start to exaggerate to make their point, and get some attention to their arguments. That is all that has happened here...you get a little crazy to draw attention to your cause....look at the Union protesters....they are only making news because they are acting crazy and not giving up....if it was calm and orderly the news organizations would not care.

Or maybe not. I faxed in my "survey" to repeal the district and the little map does not reflect this. How many others had the same experience?

Mine was recorded properly but I did not fax it. I returned it by mail....

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

Looking at the repeal maps....from City of Houston...its interesting that they did not post Heights South....I believe that is where the most opposition was...I wonder what is holding up that process?

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html

I like that they have shown which properties opted out. Gives you an easy way to judge the intelligence or apathy of your neighbors.

Get Ready Folks! I got an email saying that the Planning Director is going to present her info to Council next week on Wednesday. Now the fun begins.

Swamp lot is reporting no changes to the boundaries will be recommended...SURPRISE!....seriously though its just more bad news....Have they rescheduled the council meeting on this yet?

You obviously know nothing about developing real estate in the City of Houston. Traffic impact analysis and mitigation requirements are pre-requisites for permitting. While you may be right that the best data will come after construction begins, traffic engineers operate in a very unrealistic world of traffic counts set by their engineering manual (which severely underrepresent Walmart traffic in an urban area) and projections done using modeling software (as well as some good old fashion guess work when it comes to projecting the feeder traffic) because their work must be complete before the site plans go in for approval. The City doesn't just let people build and deal with the traffic later. The traffic issues are supposed to be resolved (on a planning level) prior to permit approval. Of course when the City sits around and pees in its pants at the thought of another Ashby lawsuit, the traffic impact process may as well not exist at all.

I have been intimately involved in and constructed 3 concrete tilt wall buildings in my life. I have had no fewer than 10 traffic studies conducted, and have personally been involved in a 3 year litigation revolving around highway condemnation that included a bridge over a creek. I know exactly how accurate traffic studies are, and I know exactly how willing a traffic study firm is to manipulate the data to the liking of their clients. That is a very large issue in a highway condemnation case, because the higher the traffic count, the more valuable your property when it is being taken from you.

However, my point had nothing to do with that at all. I simply called your statistic that the walmart will bring lots of traffic wrong. I stated that the walmart will not be responsible for the traffic, the feeder will be. I agree with you that the addittion of the feeder will make it much worse, but that is the extent to me agreeing with anything you say. Walmart is going to be allowed to build because they had their traffic studies done before the expansion...Its not illegal dishonest or anything else. They followed the rules. YOu just dont like it.

You really should qualify your statements more and speak in less absolutes as I told you before...because not only do I know how studies/permiting/environmental issues work, I am involved in them daily as part of my job.

hahaha, ok, so I decided to search the web for any info on this. first link is an article on chron...

http://www.click2hou...801/detail.html

someone states: "The load of the Yale Street bridge, which is actually under the weight of a loaded semi truck, so we'll have traffic congestion"

yet the writer of the article chooses not to do any actual reporting and doesn't reference the technical information of the capacity of the bridge itself. lol. it just references that Walmart is committed to making a bike trail. what a farce of an article that is.

I would expect an actual reporter would have done some research and stated one of the two following:

1. the concerns of the resident are valid, the capacity of the bridge is xxxxx.

2. the concerns of the resident are misguided, the capacity of the bridge is over those claimed.

so silly. back to searching.

I dont know about this particular bridge, but most bridges that are not interstate bridges have their weight capacity located on the side of the road about 100' short of the bridge itself giving a truck time to stop and turn around if it is too heavy for the bridge. Even though I drive over this bridge daily I have never looked for the sign on this bridge to see what it says as far as capacities.

The traffic issue is one of the very few levers the anti-Walmart folks have to stop this development. However, I'd have a little more respect for them if they were honest about the fact that they don't really care about the traffic itself, just the fact that what's generating the traffic is a Walmart.

RUDH (and s3mh and others) have stated a preference for higher density West Ave/City Centre style mixed use development for this land. A higher density project would bring MORE retail square footage, MORE total parking spaces, and generate MORE trips daily.

The report estimates the daily trip count for Walmart is 8077 of 17,792 trip total (the 16,630 value is net of internal capture, i.e. people going to multiple destinations in the same development). So even though Walmart is 70% of the square footage, it's responsible for only 45% of the trip generation. Replacing the Walmart's 150k sf with almost anything else would INcrease traffic count, not decrease it, especially if you added residential or office space above it.

SHHHH - you are using logic! We do not use logic while opposing Walmart or Historic districts.

You do understand that the traffic counts will be a moot point once they start to build?

We are actually on the same page but come out very different ways on this. The traffic study clearly shows the feeder road ruining traffic conditions. You take the tear drop in a salted sea approach and give the developer a free pass to make a bad situation worse (which is not what the design manual requires). My point has always been that the existing traffic infrastructure is insufficient for a Walmart supercenter. The traffic study agrees. Thus, they are spending millions (of our tax dollars) to attempt to mitigate the additional traffic. So, the developer has admitted that the traffic impact of the Walmart development is significant and is spending millions (of our tax dollars) to try to make it work. So, there is no debate whether the Walmart development will worsen traffic on existing infrastructure. The developer's own traffic engineer admits that. The issue is whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient (it is not) and whether tax payers should have to pay for something the developer would normally be required to pay for, and, in this case, has said that he would pay for. If you look at the proposed mitigation, it is all for the development and virtually nothing for the community. All they do for the I-10/Yale intersection is add a little right turn lane. Yet, they are willing to put in a dedicated left turn lane to the development by widening Yale between Koehler and the grade separation. If they can do that with our tax dollars, they can certainly afford to add a dedicated left turn lane at the Yale/I-10 intersection to keep Yale from effectively becoming a one lane road at I-10 if someone tries to make a left hand turn. But, they don't. If you are ok with that, that is fine. I am not and am going to pound on the City until they do something about it. You can thank me later.

Why would traffic counts be moot once the building starts? That makes no sense. Construction traffic is negligible...were talking about an additional couple of hundred cars per day...so what? That is an insignificant number. The best gauge of how bad it will be is for the traffic counts to be done after the feeder is complete and before the Walmart opens....you can even subtract the average difference from the construction if you want since you have that number as well...we would have 3 snap shots. 1) before expansion of freeway 2) after expansion 3) after Walmart. I think if you took those numbers you would find the Walmart really added very few cars/problems.

The existing traffic infrastructure is fine without the new feeder road. Add the feeder road and then we have the problem. Walmart is not creating the problem that will cause the infrastructure to be insufficient...they are merely working with it....since they are not creating it, why should they be responsible for remedying it? They are willing to remedy the problems they create, but they did not create the future problem, TXDOT is creating it, and accordingly TXDOT (me and you) will get to pay to fix it.

You want Walmart to fix it because it would feel like some moral victory at this point to stick it to them...but that is because you dont want Walmart, you will fight tooth and nail to stop them.

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

Also, this will luckily be measurable. The feeder is underway, and the Walmart is not. Construction traffic to the Walmart will be very low. It takes surprisingly few people/vehicles to build a concrete tilt wall building, I have had three of over 44,000 square feet each built....30-50 people max at any one time until the final build out starts....We should be able to get real hard numbers after the feeder construction long before Walmart opens to its first of 16,000 cars/day.

That is exactly the dodge Ainbinder's traffic engineers are trying to use. But even they recognize and take responsibility for mitigation needed as a result of the additional 16,000 car trips attributable to the development (their numbers, not mine). Since you all won't believe anything I say because I dare to speak against the conventional pro-developer/builder wisdom, I will let Kuffner do the arguing (this time):

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=34179

That is a poorly written argument. I use Yale every day coming and going...I cut over to Memorial and take it to 45 to go South to avoid the traffic at I-10 and 45 South....99/100 its faster than taking the freeway. I know this because I timed it out of utter frustration for almost 2 full weeks in each direction. It is much worse in the morning heading towards downtown than it is in the afternoon heading towards Katy.

So where does the traffic come from? How bout the people who exit I-10 East turn right and take Memorial to 45 like I do now from 11th? How bout those who do it to avoid I-10 into downtown? (slower, but more consistent), or how bout all the people who are at 14th or 15th on Yale and want to go West??? They are currently forced to goto Shepherd or cut through small streets to get behind the entrance ramp at Heights...

This new feeder is going to add a huge amount of traffic to the intersection at Yale. The 16,000 cars per day to the WalMart will look like nothing compared to the increases from people who like to use on ramps as shortcuts around traffic. The walmart, will certainly add cars, but nothing like the feeder road expansion.

I posted that before I read the conclusions from the traffic study....before it was even posted. Common sense and my own driving habits tell me that people are going to look for short cuts....another feeder is another short cut to somewhere for someone...I dont care about the Walmart, but Im not happy about the feeder. However, all I will do is state my position, because nothing anyone does will change either of them at all.

Its out of our hands.

I'm sick and tired of your rabble. You keep calling the anti-ordinance people anti-preservationist. Most of us are for preservation, and several of us have went to great lengths to preserve buildings/art/antiques/culture. Your labeling of "anti-preservation" is blatantly offensive, and I think you owe us an apology. And you have the audacity to constantly accuse others of Strawman arguments. LOL

Some of the things said (paint color/political signs/hvac) were exaggerations yes, but that was the WHOLE point. You have to be concise/clear with the ordinance. If you leave an area open to interpretation crazy things can happen. Especially when people like you, who claimed after your "victory" that those who opposed it will pay for it.

In truth, you must admit that the Walmart will have very little effect on your daily life. You blab about traffic, getting fat??, and all the terrible things that will happen from walmart (walmart chupacabra will eat your animals) but I know for me personally, I maybe drive by this location once or twice a month, if traffic really is bad on Yale (which i seriously doubt it will be any worse than Target on Sawyer), I'll just take one of the other choices to get back to the Heights. Sawyer should be even faster because Walmart is dilluting their share...

I actually believe there will be a substantial increase of traffic on Yale in the coming months, but it will not be because of the Wal Mart...it will be because of the Feeder being extended from Yale to Shepherd. I also anticipate the Anti-WalMart folks will use the increases in traffic because of the feeder as proof they were right about the WalMart increasing traffic on Yale.

I hope the feeder is completed a long time before the Walmart opens and someone does another traffic count, because I honestly do believe the feeder will at least double, possibly triple the traffic on Yale & Heights.....but I do not believe the WalMart will have a noticeable effect.

I've bold faced some relevant portions for you to consider....

Fourth, Drs are insured and are rarely bankrupted, muchless financially inconvenienced by lawsuits. The insurance covers attorney's fees, expenses and indemnity. Unless a doctor is underinsured, they will usually only be out the deductible.

And, finally, some doctors do hurt people intentionally. There are cases of OBGYNs raping women, drs operating while they were drunk or on cocaine and drs ignoring patients' problems in order to keep their social schedule. Doctors are people. Most are good, but some are bad. Malpractice lawsuits are the only way to keep the bad ones out of practice. Licensing boards are made up of doctors and never pull licenses.

And you did nothing other than strawman an argument on intentional torts. I never said it was impossible to recover from doctors who commit intentional torts. I just said that doctors are human and are not some special species of the human race. I gave real examples of some very human wrongdoing that doctors have committed over the years.

Do you see the contradictions here?

An intentional tort suit is a means of collecting above and beyond a medical malpractice suit (rape, operating while drunk, operating on cocaine). A criminal indictment will ensure that a doctor no longer practices medicine. BOTH are means of keeping bad doctors out of practice, and neither are medical malpratice. I am also willing to bet licensing boards, even ones made up of doctors, will pull the license of doctors convicted or found liable for the above offenses. Finally - most insurance does not cover intentional acts, or criminal ones (disclaimer - I am not a med mal insurance professional so I could be mistaken), so if found liable or guilty of those offenses, it would indeed bankrupt a doctor.

And I have no problems with my credibility here....not knowing exactly how a medical malpractice suit collects damages does not make me any less credible on a very simple topic of strict interpretation of a city ordinance...Many civil cases do allow fees/costs of court to be born by the losing party when they are found to have commited the acts intentionally...if med mal does not, so what. I was wrong, its not a big deal. I readily admit when I am wrong...I don't have any issue with it all. But, I do not accept your word for it, and I am not going to waste my time proving you right. I really do not currently care about Med Mal, its irrelevant to me, and its irrelevant to all your other anti-walmart, pro historic ordinance arguments.

If you would like to go treading back through the historic ordinance thread, in there you will see that I admitted I was exaggerating to the political party yard signs.....

The difference in credibility between you and me is that when dealing with the ordinance I use facts, the ordinance, and I showed you clearly how the wording allows abuse...how the actual words of the ordinance allow abuse, how its written broadly enough to enable abuse...you just said nuh-uh that wont happen Annise Parker said so....I know that when dealing with ordinances the words are strictly interpreted....comments do not matter, and nothing said at a meeting by the dishonest ordinance people who hosted it matter either. It is not a defense that they told you it was allowed....the only thing that matters is the words as they are written.

When dealing with WalMart - I know for a fact that that ONLY person at fault for you being fat, and lazy, is YOU. Its not Big Ag like you said (I proved you wrong with your cattle statistics), its not Big Grocery like you said, its not the federal government subsidies like you said...its the lazy people who are unwilling to change.

The more you speak the more I am certain that everything you pretend to be an authority on is coming directly from a Michael Moore movie....I did not see the health care movie he put out, so I assume Med Mal was covered in it since you seem to think you are an authority on it.