RedScare

I got the identical email from Ms. Lovell. I cannot think of a nice word for it, so I'll simply have to say she lied to us. She has not kept her word. She apparently does not realize how much effort we will expend to right this wrong, including voting her out of office. My email reminded her that the overwhelming majority of voters is opposed to this ordinance. We may have to prove it to her at election time.

In the meantime, I plan to show up tomorrow night, though I may be late. I look forward to meeting my neighbors who oppose this draconian and expensive restriction of our rights to maintain our homes.

Considering that the load is only traveling 20 to 30 miles (there are several concrete manufacturing companies in Houston), I cannot imagine why you even think that a 30 minute trip by truck to deliver a couple of several thousand dollar culverts is considered inefficient. But, even if it is considered inefficient, the various government agencies specing out these jobs would never allow the equivalent of a pre-broken culvert to be placed underneath its roads and highways, especially in the movable clay that Houston sits on.

Here's a link to a site listing all the ways pre-cast concrete is superior...and more efficient.

http://www.americanconcrete.com/commercial/box_culverts/box-culverts.htm

And the preservationists wonder why heretofore old house lovers have been turned into hardcore anti-preservationists seemingly overnight. The level of animosity I now harbor toward preservationists can hardly be described. Any elected official who goes along with a plan like that should be prepared to spend a lot of money on his or her next campaign, because as long as these people hold control over my property, I intend to make their political lives hell...as well as short.

I am glad Tale is getting fixed up sooner as opposed to later. I don't mind the city using adeveloper to do so.

I'm glad the city saw the wisdom of using the 380 to improve the infrastructure in my neighborhood.

There was another boat restaurant on South Main not far from the Shamrock. It was mainly seafood, of course.

I think Houston was known for horrendous traffic early on since the population had grown faster than the infrastructure could keep up. After the bust people used to say that one benefit was that traffic slacked off.

Downtown was indeed a different and not so nice place. The Savoy, Lamar, Holiday Inn, Whitehall, Sheraton and Texas State hotels all closed down. The entire Lamar Hotel block was demolished and left as surface parking. The Rice Hotel was decrepit, boarded up, and smelled like urine. Something like a dozen skyscraper projects were canceled. The east side of downtown was a sea of surface lots, and what is now Midtown was largely vacant except for some somewhat shady operations in some of the old houses.

All that said, it did seem like a fun place to live at the time. As others have mentioned, there seemed to be something of a "we're all in this together" attitude.

In addition to the slacking off of traffic (Houston actually lost population in the mid to late 80s), the huge number of freeway construction projects begun in the early 80s in a desparate attempt to lessen the gridlock on nearly every freeway began to come online. For instance, the Hardy and North and West Sam Houston toll roads were opened in the late 80s, and the widening of I-45 was also completed, making travel in north Houston almost pleasant for a few years.

The Chronicle article is misinformation. Here is the pertinent language and the burden is on the neighborhood to officially request redesignation:

"The owners of property in an historic district previously designated by the City Council who desire the City Council to repeal the designation may submit a request for reconsideration of the designation of the district. The request must be submitted in writing...not later than 15 days following the date of the passage and approval of this Ordinance. The request must be signed by the owners of at least 25 percent of the tracts within the historic district or proposed historic district."

Agreed. The section containing the 15 day provision is specific to the 3 pending historic districts, including South Heights. I have sent an email to CM Gonzalez asking that he push for a longer...and preferably permanent...opt-out provision, but I am not hopeful. He appears to be attempting to curry favor with the small number of preservationists pushing for government control of our homes. Still, reminding him of the 60% opposition can't hurt.

Regardless what the time limit is, I believe that we can blanket the neighborhood quickly. The overwhelming number of anti-ordinance signs in South Heights suggests that we will be well received.

Article on the new ordinance. This is not how I read the thing, but if it requires South Heights (and others with only tepid support for a more restrictive ordinance) to re-vote, then I might could live with it. I do not relish having to walk the neighborhood in order to be left alone, but if it keeps the City from becoming my interior designer, I'll do it.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7206511.html

Looking at the Transition Ordinance, I don't think the Chronicle article is entirely correct. The pending districts are specifically mentioned, and have 15 days to appeal.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/docs_pdfs/HPO_TransitionDraft.pdf

See bottom of page 2.

Do you think it too early to begin the signature collection process? We could learn where we stand and get a jump on the 15 day BS.

Perhaps not. An education campaign could begin early, with a list of willing signers made. That way, when the time comes, we'd know which houses to go to and which to avoid.

Sad days indeed ahead as we watch with seemingly little recourse political wheels steamrolling ahead. The Heights stands to lose many homeowners with vested interests that have brought the Heights from its intrepid depths that it reached at its low ebb. Stagnant property values and slow redevelopment certainly lie ahead. I will be looking to take my own investments in Houston elsewhere when the Heights South becomes officially Historic. We are good people who simply dont share a common opinion regarding government involvement with my personal property.I'm certain that my investments will be welcomed elsewhere - Good riddance Heights, Good riddance Houston.... it was a pleasure knowing you.....

It's not a done deal yet. For one, more than 20% percent of the tract owners who initially signed on 4 years ago have rescinded their approval, making the current percentage of supporters around 40%. City Council may not even pass this thing. If they do, we have 15 days to get 191 signatures to force a re-vote. Is that BS? Yes. Is it a blatant attempt to subvert the will of the neighborhood? Of course. Is it possible to garner 191 signatures in 15 days? Absolutely. There are 42 blocks in the proposed district.As few as 10 people could canvas one block per day in 4 days. Hell, there may be more than 190 opposition signs in South Heights yards right now!

I've already committed, along with 3 neighbors, to collect signatures. It can be done. I won't give these people control of my house without a fight. They've already shown themselves to be misleading, deceitful, and outright liars. It does not bode well for the treatment we will receive once under their thumbs.

The bottom line is that if you live in a neighborhood in Houston with at least 10% activist preservationists, they can invoke historic district rules on you every year and you will be under those rules for approximately 6 months until the application is declared a failure one way or another.

Yet, there is only one opportunity to reject or rescind Historic District status, and that requires 25% of residents to petition within 15 days of passage by City Council. It only takes 10% of my neighbors to restrict my rights...and they have unlimited time to do so...but it takes 25% of neighbors and only one 15 day period to get them back.

I copied this response from Mayor Parker to an anti-Walmart protester. It pretty well sums up the Mayor's position (and I suspect most of Council).

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Koehler Street development

with me.

...Ainbinder is going to develop the Koehler Street site, and the City has no legal

basis for preventing that development as long as it meets the City’s ordinances and

building codes; we cannot create an ordinance after the fact. Additionally, there is

no legal basis for telling the developer with whom he can or cannot enter into a

lease agreement.

I support economic development in Houston, and I believe that this development

will have a positive impact overall on the City’s economy. The issue is making

that development as neighborhood friendly a possible, and the 380 agreement is

our tool for accomplishing that.

Sincerely,

Annise D. Parker

Mayor

But based on existing info, Yale had a count of 10k in 2006, the standard for a suburban Walmart, according to the Traffic Engineer's manual is 10k. Yale is rated to handle 26k. Add in additional traffic from the feeder and update the Yale count to reflect growth on Washington since 2006, and you will probably max out Yale with the development. The City will not let a developer max out a roadway. They require mitigation. That is why the city is doing the 380 agreement.

Based on the traffic counts that your own anti-Walmart group commissioned, traffic on Yale is slightly lower today than several years ago, at 10,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, the 10,000 vehicles per day that you claim Walmart will bring is based on a 200,000 square foot Supercenter. This store is proposed at 152,000. So, using YOUR figures, 10,000 current vehicles plus 10,000 new vehicles (probably more like 8,000 vehicles) equals no more than 20,000 vehicles per day on a 26,000 vehicle street. This is equal to traffic on north Yale, and LESS than Studewood.

This store will not max out capacity on Yale.

As for the 380, I have no problem with the City using tools at its disposal to get the infrastructure improved quicker. Those who oppose infrastructure improvements as a way to oppose new development have their priorities skewed. Living in a 90 year old house does not obligate me to drive on 90 year old roads.

As a source, City engineers stated that Yale could handle 26,000 vehicles per day.

Most of the road and drainage improvements are for the benefit of the development and Walmart (mostly). If they leave the drainage and roads as is, they would not be able to get the permits they want because the existing roadways cannot support the additional traffic. Thus, those improvements are to make it possible for Walmart and the developers to build, not to make the neighborhood nicer.

This is untrue. A 4 lane road can handle well in excess of the existing AND projected traffic, even the inflated numbers given by Walmart opponents. Yale near 610 handles 20,000 vehicles per day already. Studemont handles nearly 30,000 vehicles per day. To claim a 10,000 vehicle per day road cannot handle anticipated Walmart traffic is quite simply, a lie.

I'll chime in on this one...the CAF cars are better in some ways because they hold slightly more people, is 100% low-floor and have 2 extra ingress/egress points. However, their top speed is 45 mph, compared to Siemens' 66 mph top speed. They also have much fewer seats inside than the Siemens car (even the trial versions now in use with bike/carriage spaces). It should also be noted that the CAF cars are quite a bit longer than Siemens' cars too. They are also NOT interchangeable at all with Siemens (as others have mentioned).

You point out the longer length as if that is a drawback. It most definitely is not. The longer CAF cars allow more capacity while remaining within the confines of short downtown blocks. The top speed, like the high water issue, is not a problem for a train that never exceeds 35 mph. This would only become an issue on a suburban route, which we obviously do not have, and likely won't for years.

As a total side note, I do think it's always interesting to see the folks that do their shopping after 10:30pm at night, regardless of the store (Kroger, Walmart, etc). It really opens your eyes to the fact that the world does go on after dark. To say that business has slowed to "virtually nothing" would, in my opinion, not be accurate. But that's not worth arguing about.

I think all 24 hour big box stores likely draw more than their share of crime. I'd be arguing against any big-box store on that lot.

As one who spent 2 years working graveyards, I think I know what I am talking about. And, since Walmarts were some of the few stores open, I did my share of shopping at them. I also spent some time shopping at the huge 24 hour Kroger that no one had a problem with. There are rarely more than a dozen or so shoppers in these stores late night. Those extra dozens of vehicles you see are the nightime staff re-stocking and cleaning the stores...and the security guard. Yes, every one of them had security.

But, don't worry. No one here is offended by the deliberate misinformation posted by those opposed to this store. I for one enjoy it it. I realize that if the only ammo the anti-Walmart forces have are deliberately misleading and unrelated anecdotes and traffic studies that prove there is less traffic than claimed, this store is getting built.

Since you are so concerned about crime in big box parking lots, I invite you to peruse the HPD crime stats for Sawyer Heights Target and surrounding stores. You'll be delighted to know that they have dozens of auto thefts, burglaries, robberies and rapes monthly. I'll even help you do your research. Look for crimes in the following blocks and streets:

2400 to 2600 Crockett

2400 to 2600 Shearn

2300 to 2700 Spring

2300 to 2500 Alamo

2300 to 2500 Ovid

1900 to 2300 Taylor

1800 to 1900 Sawyer

http://www.houstontx.gov/police/cs/beatpages/cs2a40.htm

Enjoy.

I'd love to hear other examples of murders in parking lots that go unnoticed for several hours. Truly, I'd be interested.

Call me cynical...

OK, I will. Better yet, I'll call you disingenuous. You pick a likely drug deal gone bad in the most dangerous section of Houston at a late hour when business has slowed to virtually nothing, and expect security to be swarming the lot. You do not even know where in the lot the crime occurred. This isn't Walmart related. This murder could have happened in any lot, but the thugs picked this one to meet. Seriously, you people aren't even trying. Why should the mayor and council take you seriously when your claims are so easily shot down (pun intended)? The only thing worse than this anecdote are the traffic claims buttressed by a traffic study that shows less traffic than we thought.

Here's my suggestion. You likely do not park in the empty field at 10:30 at night and wait for thugs to get into your car now. I recommend not picking up that habit once the Walmart is built.

Then again, maybe you should. Considering that s3mh claims over 10,000 people per day will visit this parking lot, or 300,000 per month, or 3.6 million per year, the fact that only one murder occurs there makes the Walmart parking lot one of the safest places in Houston to sit in your car at night.

Am I understanding your post correctly? Are the new cars incompatible with the existing Siemans cars in terms of running double cars during periods of high usage?

If so, that's just ... stupid.

Not really. They plan to use the Siemens cars on other lines. The CAF cars have more capacity per car and can fit within the short downtown blocks, resulting in a large capacity increase on the line. A quick look at the CAF design would have immediately shown why this is a smart move. But, I'm guessing you typed before you looked.

I'll help out by posting a press release on the matter

http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/archive/2009/03/05/New-Trains-to-be-Nation_2700_s-First-Low_2D00_Floor-Model.aspx.

You are simultaneously confusing viewpoints and rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I feel safe in speaking for crunch in saying that it is not the right of you and 2/3 of New Yorkers to complain about a mosque that she and I find objectionable. It is the argument that you propound that we disagree with. Likewise, we do not object to the right of a southern fried redneck preacher to burn books. We find his views disgusting...as is our right. Obama, and the US administration is concerned that a publicity seeking douchebag may be putting US lives in danger, and has spoken up about their fears...which is exactly what they should do.

As I understand it, the FBI paid a visit to the Rev. POS. My neighbor and I believe that while expressing their concerns that US lives may be endangered, the Special Agents may have let slip their knowledge of some of the reverends other activities...and which sections of the US Code might discourage such activities. Given that a high percentage of these nutjobs also tend to have a lackadaisical attitude toward following rules that they did not make up themselves, this conversation may have influenced the reverend's softer stance this evening. And, I'm fine with that. Those who draw attention to themselves do not get to choose who gives them attention or why. If they also draw the attention of law enforcement, so be it (witness the number of idiots arrested after posting on Facebook, MySpace and Craiglist. Also witness the number of reality stars who end up in jail).

Since you asked, I reread your first post. You are picking nits. Get over it. No one has questioned this guys right to burn books, so no response was needed. Many people demanded that the right to build a mosque be denied the imam.

I think I will make an Annise Parker quote my sig for a few days.

Well, they are consistent. They are consistent in attemtping to protect the rights and lives of Americans from all threats, foreign and domestic, just as they promised to do in the oaths that they took. I am disappointed that you are unable to see that. Frankly, this is not even a close call. No one has denied the POS' right to burn books. They have pointed out the threat to Americans by his threat to do so. Speaking of consistency, why have you suddenly decided that putting US troops and diplomats' lives at stake for the sake of an attention grabbing whore is a proper role of US officials tasked with protecting them? Even Sarah Palin sided with the President on this one.

Both incidents deal with religious tolerance.. I expect response by officials to be equal in how applied, if not degree.

The latest....

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – The minister of a Florida church said he has canceled plans to burn copies of the Quran because the leader of a much-opposed plan to build an

Islamic Center

near ground zero has agreed to move its location. The agreement couldn't be immediately confirmed.

Does that expectation extend to Secretary of Defense and former Texas A&M president Robert Gates?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/09/pentagon_weighs_call_to_try_to.html

I find the comparison of an act of construction (building a place of worship) to an act of destruction (burning of holy books) to be interesting. I also find it interesting that you find the acts to be equal. However, I do not share you belief that it is a double standard.