RedScare

Firstly, the mail-in card process is not to overturn the ordinance - it is to dissolve the historic district you live in. The ordinance is here to stay :-(

Secondly - I was given ONE days notice about the meeting last night at the west end center. I was literally IN THE AIR at the time of the meeting. Did anyone go to "get the facts?"

Cheers

James

I am still trying to find out what this meeting was. Was it the City mandated meeting required once the petition process achieves a re-vote, or some other meeting? Did anyone go?

Try looking at a map or even getting in your car and going over to the site. There are residential neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the planned supercenter. The live in houses and townhouses. Many have their life savings invested. They do not live in an old steel mill.

Like I said, if they ever try to put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

As soon as someone puts a supercenter in a neighborhood I'll be all over it. So far, though, that hasn't happened. They've only proposed a supercenter on Yale, on the site of a former steel mill. But, if they ever put one in a neighborhood, let me know.

I think this might be a rumor based on an incident in September. In September, a guy was robbed while walking his dog along 11th. The bad guys took him back to his garage apartment and robbed him. They caught one of three robbers. I never heard about what happened to the other two. But, I have not heard anything about recent robberies along Studewood.

It was actually Pecore, near Watson, but close enough. That isolated incident is the only one I have heard about in the last several months, too.

Our community through their elected representatives have decided that the value of preserving historic properties outweighs the ultra-conservative right to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you crap on your neighbor or the community in the process.

This is a bald-faced lie. There is overwhelming opposition in the community to this ordinance. In my neighborhood, 2/3 of the residents have signed petitions to overturn the ordinance. Let me repeat that for you. TWO THIRDS OF MY NEIGHBORS OPPOSE THE ORDINANCE!

The re-vote process was crafted specifically to find a way around the overwhelming opposition. I don't mind you having a perverted view of property rights, believing that you are entitled to tell me what to do with my property. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What offends me is that a small minority can inflict their views on the overwhelming majority through subterfuge.

Since we are resorting to name-calling, let me state that you, Mayor Parker and Councilwoman Lovell appear un-American in supporting such an undemocratic vote process.

There. I called you a name, too.

I see a couple of robberies back in Jan-Feb. Nothing recent.

Did the homeowner contact the City and tell them that she was under an insurance deadline and needed to get her application in after the deadline? Did the homeowner contact her insurer and ask for an extension of the deadline? Did she contact the City and tell them she was only making repairs? Looks like she had a very good argument that it was just maintenance and should not have been red tagged.

This is another example of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic of the realtors who want to smash every bungalow in the Heights so they can get bigger commissions. Just because one building inspector gets it wrong doesn't mean the entire preservation ordinance should be scrapped.

Aren't you the poster who claims the City is underhanded and cannot do anything right in another thread about a Walmart? You're sounding a bit two-faced here.

I am upset that a future "non vote" on this issue by a property owner counts as a YES vote in the current ordinance. I'm smart enough to know that this must have cleared the city legal department, but it nonetheless concerns me that apathy will lead to the current ordinance not being overturned. With all of the attorneys that put their eyes on these postings, does anyone know if this type of vote has any grounds to be challenged and upheld?

I own two parcels of land adjacent to each other, but they are under one hcad account for tax payment simplification. Does anyone know for certain if I Will get two votes, or one?

Are any Heights residents like myself considering moving away if this ordinance is upheld? I guess that may depend on how this affects their investment.

The "inaction is a vote for the ordinance" tactic is Exhibit Number 1 for how the City and the preservationists will treat us if this ordinance remains in place. If there really was that much support for the ordinance, it would be a straight vote. Instead, Parker, Lovell and the 30 or so hardcore preservationists...some of whom live in new construction...realize that only subterfuge will accomplish their goals.

Today is the deadline for turning in the petitions for a re-vote. However, we are still collecting signatures to show the depth of the opposition to this horribly crafted ordinance. Contact me to sign the petition. This is important to show City Council that the majority do not want this ordinance, despite Ms. Lovell's exercise in authoritarianism.

Disclaimer: I am neither a realtor or a builder, nor a developer. I am simply a resident stuck in the middle of renovations to my 90 year old bungalow, when the rules were changed on me. I've also lived in the Heights longer than a year, unlike some posters to this thread.

http://documents.publicworks.houstontx.gov/document-center/guidelines-and-handouts/1075-building-demolition-guideline/details.htm

Go to the Code Enforcement Building in Midtown, pull a numbered ticket, get in line, get a demilition permit application, fill it out, and present it to the person at the counter when your number is called. The form is pretty self-explanatory. They will send out an inspector to make sure that sewer and plumbing are disconnected, as well as gas, I believe. Once they approve you, you are good to go.

How could it be down with the population so much greater, and who decided in the 50's it was higher than now. I'll take the 50's any day of the week opposed to the present.

If you have something in print to support that then please share it, we never saw any of that high crime in my time. The Judges and Courts gave little mercy to criminals back then and there was plenty room for newcomers in Huntsville. Also the Police had much more, shall we say discretion, in handling any crimes.

From HoustonHistory.com....

1946

Houston's homicide rate was 24.4 per 100,000

1952

Houston recorded 134 murders

These 134 murders occurred in a city of roughly 600,000 residents, making for a homicide rate of 22.3 per 100,000.

1958

Houston was labeled "Murder town, USA" by Time Magazine for maintaining the highest murder rate in the nation, 15 per 100,000

For comparison, Houston's homicide rate in 2008 was 13 per 100,000 (294 homicides). It dropped to 12 per 100,000 in 2009 (270 homicides). 2010 is running 9.7% below the total for 2009, a rate of approximately 10.8 per 100,000.

Nice try, though. Lots of old people think the good ole days were idyllic.

I'm still waiting to hear what the people from the surrounding community think should be put on the "Heights Walmart" site, if not a Walmart.

If you'd take the time to read back through this long thread, you'd find that the majority of nearby residents don't mind the development being built as it is now. Even the Walmart haters cheered when the sign went up signaling the development of a shopping center on the Knights of Pytheus site. The only opposition at all is directed at the Walmart itself. Some of them (most of them?) even suggested that if another big box store (HEB) replaced the Walmart, they'd be happy...no, ecstatic. The neighbors have no problem with traffic, crime and rampant consumerism, as long as the traffic, crime and consumerism comes from Target, 'mom and pop' stores (whatever those are) and 'mixed use' developments. Only when a Walmart is in the mix, does the outrage start, which is amusing, since the only thing that zoning and other governmental controls CAN'T control is which retailers open up on the site. Either the site is suitable for retail or it's not...and this site is clearly suitable for a retail development, perhaps moreso than any other site near the Heights. Great access to freeways and major thoroughfares, not a residential neighborhood (despite claims to the contrary, an industrial site is not residential), and close to other restaurants and retail.

That wasn't a spur, that was the tracks that connected the Southern Pacific (current 290 line) with the MKT (former 10-W line, Heights Bike Trail)

Misleading. Those bungalows were always pretty much surrounded by a parking lot, and Target replaced a warehouse that was at the end of the street. It demolished maybe five or six homes. In Dallas, a mall expansion flattened over 100 homes, worth four or five streets. That's a neighborhood.

Perhaps, but no more misleading than claiming that Walmart is displacing a neighborhood, when in fact, it is being built on the site of a former steel mill. Not to mention that the residents complaining about Walmart think nothing of living in townhomes built after demolishing hundreds of single family homes down the street. s3mh is crying for the renters in the apartment building on Heights. Where was his outrage when the townhomes he's protecting displaced hundreds of residents? Where was his outrage that the Target development displaced longtime residents? There is none. Because they weren't Walmart. This is why his argument is hypocrisy.

Target is not a supercenter. It is not open 24/7. It is not abutting residential neighborhoods. It is not on a major artery that serves as the main connector between the Heights and Downtown/Upper Kirby/River Oaks.

Oh, but you are right that the Target does not abut a residential neighborhood. It REPLACED it.

Watson is now a steady stream of traffic where it used to be a quiet neighborhood street.

Liar.

Watson and Taylor have always served Woodland Heights and Norhill, due to the exit and entrance ramps to I-10 that feed the street. Since you just moved here, I seriously doubt that you know what traffic used to be like on those streets, but I can say that when I drove down Watson yesterday at 6 pm, it wasn't bad.

Further I would say that the only ones voting for him were all Democrats.

Sounds like you haven't read the vote totals. In Harris County, where Republican Ed Emmett garnered 60% of the vote, and the countywide races went almost universally 55-57% Republican, Democrat Bill White actually BEAT Rick Perry. And, that's in spite of a 50,000 vote lead Perry got from straight ticket Republican voters! Lots of Houston Republicans (roughly 90,000) voted for Bill White.

When Bill White was mayor, he routinely got re-elected with 85-90% of the vote. Houstonians universally approved of Bill White.

people forget their morals, beliefs and things they stand for when something threatens their back yard.

That's some pretty serious NIMBY, considering that this proposed store is over 2 miles from the poster's back yard, on the other side of a hideous freeway overpass, on the site of a former steel mill, and fronting not one, but TWO 4 lane thoroughfares.. I guess some NIMBY's eyes are bigger than their back yards, to butcher a phrase.

Feel better? No. RedScare impugned the motives of the traffic lawyer backing this and I'm questioning whether that's a credible objection or not.

Well, since he's a friend of mine, I feel that I can impugn him with impunity. Paul also gained immeasurable publicity fighting the cameras virtually since the first day that they were installed. It was a great move on his part, especially now that he can brag about his success. And, to be sure, I don't doubt his (and apparently your) queaziness about increased use of cameras and video by government for any reason. I am not crazy about it either. I am simply pointing out that much...or most...of the arguments on the anti-camera side is overstated or false. The "emotional appeal" in this debate was actually used to defeat the cameras, not support them.

However, if you'd rather ignore the unstated motives of Paul and others, I neither care nor am I offended. I just happen to know a little behind the scenes info on the matter, and shared it. Feel free to ignore it.

Red light tickets don't go on your driving record so there is no incentive to fight it. The value of a traffic lawyer is keeping moving violations off your record

I curbed my tongue last week at the comments on this thread, but now that the cameras are going to be history, I'll be candid. As someone who actually likes to drive, considers a driver's license a privilege not a right, and has been to numerous driving schools over the years to improve my skills set, I'm very happy about this. The automotive press has called the advent of redlight and speed cameras as a money snatch since day one. The first words out of the City of Houston's spokesman today in the paper was "How are we going to make up for the revenue we've lost, furloughs and program cuts are going to become reality." Not one word about public safety, since it never was about that anyway. I don't run red lights, but many studies have shown that RLC's don't stop people from running the lights, and there's enough evidence that they can cause increases in accidents at those intersections. Further evidence that it's all about the money is the fact that the RLC operators have almost always filed suit to stop public referendums in places they have contracts. Here's an interesting article about yesterday's referendums around the country:

11/3/2010

Red Light Cameras Routed at Ballot Box

In fifteen public votes, automated ticketing machines have never survived.

Houston anti-camera protest The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

Outspent by a factor of ten to one, the group nonetheless won a majority of the 335,778 votes cast on the measure. According to campaign finance disclosure documents, ATS poured $1,746,000 into the race, in a desperate attempt to salvage one of the company's most important accounts.

"Despite the opposition having every conceivable advantage the people saw through the hype and the emotional blackmail and saw the cameras for what they are, a money making scheme that violates our constitutional rights and risks driver safety for money," Citizens Against Red Light Camera spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper.

Another ATS account was canceled by citizens in nearby Baytown, where 58 percent voted to terminate the red light camera program.

"Despite being far outspent, sued and harassed we ultimately prevailed because the truth was on our side," initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the legislature will take up a statewide camera ban this next session so citizens won't have to rip the cameras out city by city. We also urge the Baytown council to abide by the will of the people, no matter what the outcome of any future lawsuits by the camera company they partnered with... The people have spoken, bring the cameras down."

On the west coast, the vote in Mukilteo, Washington was 70 percent against the automated ticketing machines. Tax-cutting initiative guru Tim Eyman organized the effort which earned a state supreme court order denying the attempt of ATS to block the people from voting. In Anaheim, California there was no camera vendor defending the program because the mayor and city council decided on their own to add a charter amendment prohibiting the use of red light cameras. The measure passed handily with 73 percent of the 45,000 votes cast.

"I am pleased with the outcome of today's red light camera ballot issue," Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "Anaheim's voters recognized that red-light cameras are not a proven deterrent to traffic violations or traffic accidents, and I happen to agree with that assessment. Other cities have chosen to use red-light cameras as revenue producing tool, but the city council disagreed so we (city council) took the vote to the people, and they have spoken."

Garfield Heights became the fifth Ohio city to ban red light cameras and speed cameras, with a majority of the 9,194 votes cast insisting on the termination of all automated ticketing.

Earlier this year, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp

If you still think they're a good thing, I can't change your mind, but I'd say it's yet another lesson for our city government to learn...don't start programs that you have to "create funding" for later to support.

I don't find the statements by the anti-camera crowd to be any more truthful that the statements by the camera corporations. Frankly, in Houston, one group who was losing money on the camera tickets, traffic ticket lawyer Paul Kubosh and his bail bondsman brother, collected signatures from their former clients to fight aanother group who was making money on the cameras. There is nothing unconstitutional with using cameras to photograph law breakers on public streets. Virtually every police department in the area (other than HPD) uses dashboard cams to video drunk drivers and other law breaking motorists, every public facility uses cameras for security, and guess what, every criminal who pleads guilty to a crime is assessed a fine and court costs as part of his sentence. Why SHOULDN'T law breakers help pay for the cost of enforcing the law?

However, despite the misleading statements on both sides of this issue, the voters have spoken. As a Houston resident, I will pay my share of the increased property taxes needed to replace the revenue lost from the cameras, and to hire more police to patrol the intersections formerly watched by the cameras. I will also pay extra attention at intersections, since despite the cameras, Houston and Harris County remain one of the deadliest driving cities in the country.

Walmart will add 10,000 car trips a day. That is the number used by traffic engineers in their 8th edition whatever you call it manual. In reality, the number is closer to double, especially considering that the standard number reflects a Walmart in the burbs, not in a City center.

Complete and utter hogwash. The 10,000 vpd figure applies to a 200,000 square foot store, not the 152,000 that this proposed Walmart will be. And your "reality" is a complete fabrication. I guess since this is election day, exaggerations and complete fabrications are in vogue.

If you're going to take a shot at me while responding to someone else's post, the least you can do is address the points I've made, instead of totally ignoring them. Or do you agree with what I said? It's hard to tell since you ignore what I say but continue to put words in my mouth.

I think there will be increased traffic in the area due to a combination of the new feeder roads/exits and a major retail shopping center.

I was taking a shot at the very newcomer who I quoted, but if you feel it applies to you as well, so be it.

And, for what it is worth, I have lived in BOTH affected neighborhoods, West End for 5 years, and Heights (closer to Walmart than either you or s3mh, apparently) for 7. I'm not sure what s3mh thinks gives him the authority to speak for "real" Heights residents, but having canvassed my neighborhood for votes against the historic district the last 2 weeks, I can safely conclude that he is in the extreme minority on both historic districts AND Walmarts (thankfully).

It is clear that the people who are trying to tell the people in the Heights to just relax and let Walmart ruin the neighborhood have no clue about the neighborhood.

Really? Last time I checked, I AM the one who's lived in the Heights for years, and YOU are the one who just moved here, and doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, whether on this subject or the historic districts.

As mentioned before, this store is a done deal. I'm done. You and Jesse can frighten each other with tales of traffic jams and shoplifters.

He probably meant via Washington.

I-10 East, exit Yale. South to Washington, Washington East into Downtown. And vise-versa. Makes sense, since Washington is wider than Yale, and skips the CF that is the I-10/45-S interchange.

Or I-10 East, exit Yale. South to Memorial or Allen Parkway East into Downtown. Same reasons.

With or without Walmart, adding an exit off I-10 at Yale will significantly increase traffic on Yale, of this I think we can all agree. Adding traffic lights on Yale between I-10 and Washington will slow down those added cars. Again - I don't see how anyone could argue that a new red light or two would speed things up. Adding a retail center there will take some cars off the road, while adding others. Net effect? Who knows.

My opinion is it's going to be real messy.

Since he said Memorial, I can only assume he meant Memorial.

There are already exits at Durham, Studewood and Taylor. An exit at Yale would actually relieve congestion on the other exits, especially Studewood. Taylor, a 2 lane road, handles both a big box development and a freeway exit. Yale and Heights combined are 8 lanes. The claim that this area will become gridlock is a fiction. Besides, the only reason extra traffic would exit Yale is to save time getting downtown. If extra lights on Yale slows things down, they will not exit there. Your argument is self-defeating.

I chuckle at the fixation on Yale by the Walmart haters. There is a suggestion that only Yale matters to Heights residents. Improved roadways at Yale and I-10 will improve traffic flow at other Heights area exits. Yet, some posters continue to fixate on Yale with over wrought claims of traffic armagedden. You don't have to drive on Yale. If you believe it will be congested, drive on one of the other dozens of streets in the area. You claim everyone else is looking for shortcuts, find one of your own.

Just wait until you see the traffic on I-10 and Yale when the new feeder road opens. It will be the preferred way for Westsiders to go from downtown to I-10w via memorial.

And there you have it, folks! The latest installment of "Let's See What I Can Pull Outta My Butt", starring s3mh! Not only does he have no factual support for this whopper, it doesn't even make sense. But, that never stopped him before, and the fact that no one believes a word he types doesn't seem to faze him. I read this thread JUST to see what he'll type next. Since the Walmart is already approved, there's no other reason to continue this thread.

Absolutely.