RedScare

What happened was that Metro, with the pushing of Lee Brown, tore up every damn street at the same time, making it impossible to go to the places we liked. We lived in Midtown from 1998-2004, and went Downtown all the time - until the streets were destroyed.

What is most interesting about this tired cliche is that the streets were torn up from 2001 up until Jan.1, 2004 (Remember when the Super Bowl was here?)...EXACTLY the years that you say Downtown was hopping. All street work on Main was completed by 2004, which is when you claim downtown died. By your logic, Lee Brown and METRO should be thanked for tearing up the streets, as they are the ones that made Downtown exciting.

I found this interesting "article" on Houston Press regarding Walmart grocery prices:

"Would Walmart Bring Low Grocery Prices to the Heights? Not Really"

http://blogs.houston...cery_prices.php

In a manner that has become the hallmark of the anti-Walmart folks, the article is completely without fact. The author compared grocery prices from a regular Walmart (not a Supercenter). Because that particular Walmart did not carry "Eggland's Best" eggs, it lost the "Egg" price category. Because that Walmart did not carry fresh produce, it also lost the "Gala Apples" and "Roma Tomatoes" categories.

The author also bashed Walmart because she could not locate any information about their "Lone Star Farmer's Market" eggs on the internet. She stated, "The 90 cent eggs offered at Walmart weren't Eggland's Best, but you can certainly purchase them if you have utter faith in buying eggs from a brand that no one has heard of, and for which absolutely no information could be found on the Internet."

Even constraining my Google search with quotations around the whole brand name, I got 570 results.

It is humorous that that anti-Walmart campaign is so outlandishly bloated with misrepresentations and misinformation that it damages their credibility.

That is an embarrassingly bad article. Even Walmart opponents would not cite an article with so many blatant "mistakes" (I am being charitable, since the author posts on this forum). Not only is the "standard" Walmart not standard (Supercenters outnumber "standard" Walmarts 4 to 1, and "standard" stores are being phased out), anti-Walmarters' main complaint is that the proposed Walmart WILL be a Supercenter. And the method used to arrive at the conclusion that Walmart is not cheaper? Throw out cheaper products if you haven't heard of them? Never seen that method used before. Of the products where all stores carried them, Walmart actually WAS cheaper overall, a fact ignored by the author. I haven't read the Press in several years. This article suggests that I'm not missing much.

I'm not sure what the correct numbers are, but from someone who lives one block west of Yale, and crosses Yale on a bike or with a dog multiple times per week, I'd say there are already too many cars on Yale for what SHOULD be considered a residential neighborhood. It's like running the gauntlet. There are too many speeders and too much traffic to cross safely during most times of the week. They need to put in more signals and NOT synchronize them, or synchronize them for the speed limit, which is 30 mpg (for reference, Heights Blvd is 35 mph).

HPD could make their monthly quota on a daily basis on Yale, and frankly, I'm ticked off about it. So, more traffic on Yale? Any more equals too many.

This is exactly what is proposed. The extension of Koehler will enable you to cross at an intersection controlled by traffic signals, making your gauntlet much safer.

And, not to be confrontational, but the Heights/Yale corridor is anything but residential. The proposed development is located on the site of a former steel mill. North of that is a stone yard. On the other side of Yale is a bar, another industrial shop, and a former meeting hall. Further south is a storage facility, restaurants, businesses and shops. On the east side of Heights are businesses, a shopping center, a city multi-purpose center, an office building, and whatever one wishes to categorize the Art Car Museum. There are a few townhomes so poorly located that they cannot sell them. The entire area consists of two 4 lane roads bisected by a railroad track and bordered by another major thoroughfare and a freeway overpass. This area is the very antithesis of residential. Only the apartment complex is residential. It is low rent for a reason.

EDIT: By the way, for all the talk of Yale between I-10 and Washington being a traffic nightmare, it has the lowest volume of traffic of any strtch throughout the Heights. The section at 19th is nearly 50% higher, and the upper section near 610 has 90% more traffic. Even adding the 7,500 vehicles per day that a Walmart might generate (s3mh's imaginary 10,000 vpd is for a 200,000 sf Walmart), leaves this section of Yale lower than some sections in the residential, non-big box Heights. And, unlike some anti-Walmart posters, I post links!

http://ttihouston.tamu.edu/hgac/trafficcountmap/

It seems the Planning Commission approved the Variance Request today, allowing the connection of Koehler Street to 2nd Street. Interestingly, the Commission noted that the original plan for Houston Heights intended for 2nd Street to extend over to Yale. So the argument that this development is part of the Heights had an effect on the Planning Commission in that they followed the historical intent of the developers of the Houston Heights. They also noted that the Walmart itself is not in the original footprint of Houston Heights.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/maps/images/map0435.jpg

I'll bet that kinda stings to those who used the Heights argument to oppose this thing.

Anyone have other reasons?

The US Constitution comes to mind.

Heh. I assume that means that you've also noted that Keren Derr actually posts on the anti-Walmart facebook group?

Yes, I have.

Despite s3mh's insistence to the contrary, I am not seeing much that indicates that this store is not going to be built in exactly the place where it is proposed. Even the Facebook site seems to have a fatalistic feel, no doubt brought on by too many statements by City officials that it is not a question of 'if', but 'when'.

The City is just assuming that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. Looking at aerial photography, the site was clearly at least 40% dirt=permeable. That would mean 8 acres worth of detention should be required.

Could you provide the math on this. I've filled out the City's drainage worksheet before, and I'd like to see your math, since you are so specific.

And the 380 agreement is an unprecedented tax giveaway to a developer.

Not even close, but I love reading your hyperbole.

Mayor Parker and council all know that if the development wrecks the area, they will never be elected again in the City of Houston.

Biggest whopper on this whole thread! I love it! A few hundred Heights residents think they can control an election in a city of 2.25 million people. Hell, you people couldn't even get Karen Derr elected and you think you can outvote everyone else?

What resources were expended, really? It strikes me as having been one of those programs where titles are bestowed on well-meaning people, most of whom are ineffective. And at the end of the day, they get to walk away having done nothing and feeling good about it. At least, that's what's in my mind's eye. I could be completely wrong. ...point being, the number of convictions is hardly a reliable indicator of the amount of wrongdoing.

And to be clear, I am just being nit-picky because Red left himself open on that one little point. I agree completely with his broader thesis.

Actually, I didn't leave myself open at all. I didn't state the obvious, as I expected people to see it. To commit enough voter fraud to effect an election can take thousands of people. They must register numerous times under many aliases, or they must register thousands of otherwise ineligible voters dedicated to voting for one candidate. It is a felony to do this, so there must be a financial incentive. It would cost a fortune to do so. It is simply not a viable strategy. The people who would be inclined to vote for a candidate illegally usually can and do vote for the candidate legally, so no fraud is committed. It is simply a cool conspiracy theory that is wholly unworkable in reality. The better practice is ballot stuffing or rigged voting machines, but those methods are not the ones that Justice made an effort to uncover. Instead, they prosecuted people who helped the old and infirm vote who inadvertantly gave assistance that is considered illegal. The people pushing the voter fraud conspiracies know this. They also know that there are plenty of gullible people who will buy into an unworkable theory, just because they like to believe it.

The bad fraud is being committed, but it is not being investigated because it is committed much further up the food chain.

Much like the historic ordinance, eh?

If the City owned my property, sure.

security fence? is that permanent?

I'd like to see a picture. Why would they have a fence around a park?

Dog run.

The City has not obstructed the reopening of alleys. In fact, the City jealously guards its right of way. However, to protect itself from substandard rehab of the alleys by homeowners, the City requires repaving to approach the level of an actual street. Some have interpereted this requirement to be obstructionism. It is not. It is simply the City setting standards higher than the level some homeowners wish to use.

Yes, I read the same article.

Regardless, preserving the human scale house in front - be it shotgun or bungalow - makes for a more attractive streetscape, and is certainly preferable to rows of gaping garage doors (cameltoes?).

There are less restrictive ways of keeping the garage doors off the front of the houses, and in fact, it has been done on my street without the historic district.

As for your statement that camelbacks make for attractive streetscapes...or for that matter, using attractive and camelback in the same sentence at all...I now have a concrete reason for ignoring any opinion you have regarding architectural attractiveness. And to think you once posted a reply that you have tried to educate people on the value of architecture.

Gee, New Orleans abounds with historic camelbacks.

I guess that makes people who admire N.O.'s architecture and ambience 'ignorant slobs'?

In the way you describe it, yes.

The whole "voter fraud" thing is a manufactured crisis by those wishing to cast suspicion against the other party, and believed by those who know little about the mechanics or specifics of voting and voter registration. To begin with, voter participation is very low. Only 32% are expected to even vote this November. In the communities accused of promoting voter fraud, the percentage who vote is even less. It is incredibly hard to believe that a group that cares so little about voting by the ELIGIBLE voters would have a big problem with INeligible voters attempting to register. But, on certain radio stations and TV networks this is exactly what they are suggesting, and a sizable percentage of listeners and viewers believe it.

Secondly, the people in charge of ferreting out illegal voters and prosecuting them have prosecuted virtually no one. It was 6 the last time I heard. This in a state with some 13 million or so eligible voters. There just isn't any substance to the acusations, but they come up every election anyway.

Some people just love conspiracies. Even better is to hear suggestions that Democrats are behind the voting machine fire. Houston is Bill White's stronghold. He would be the last person to harm his best chance for votes. But, the suggestions come anyway.

Some people are also not very intelligent.

I have candidly stated numerous times....

No, you really haven't been candid at all on this subject. Sorry.

Right now, the City is apparently offering 20 million to do infrastructure improvements in gated communities for InTown Homes. These are just giveaways. Tax abatements are supposed to be used to encourage economic development in areas that are in desparate need for development. Tax abatements are not supposed to be given out as freebees to keep developers from wrecking neighborhoods. Say what you want about anti-Walmart sentiment, but if you can't understand the 380 agreement issue, there is no hope for you.

This is a good example of your lack of candor. InTown Homes has nothing to do with Walmart.

I agree that there is no hope for me. As little of a fan of Walmart as I am, there is no hope whatsoever that I will make up things in an attempt to keep them from building on Yale. I thoroughly understand the law of unintended consequences. Therefore, I realize that if I convince government officials to violate the rights of a corporation simply because I do not care for them, there is nothing to stop that same government from violating my rights simply because someone does not care for me.

You strike me as rather young. You also do not appear to be much of a student of the Constitution and of fairness. Not that you should be ashamed. There are many who feel as you do. Too many, in fact. My only wish is that you and your anti-Walmart friends would channel your energies into something worthwhile, as opposed to fighting a Walmart proposed on an industrial site. In a world where tens of millions are homeless in Pakistan, we are still stuck in 2 wars, the economy is going back into recession, and Jimmy Johnson is about to be on Survivor, few could care less whether a Walmart is built on Yale. As for me, add up the sum total of my post on this thread. That is the grand total of time I have spent on this subject...unless you count the times I have laughed with my friends and neighbors about how seriously some take this.

I think it is pretty clear that the anti-Walmart crowd is being intentionally ignorant on the 380 issue in the hopes that others will believe their bs that the City is helping build the development. It has been explained several times that 380 money does not build on private land. It is for the developer to repave CITY streets and get reimbursed for it. Though s3mh continues to claim it is a tax subsidy for private development, I think he is intentionally ignoring the facts, hoping the uninformed will buy it.

If the 380 is not granted, the development will be built, and the crappy streets will remain as they are. It will actually make traffic worse. This has the effect of cutting off one's nose to spite his face. I'm fine with it either way, but I would get a perverse thrill pointing out to anti-Walmarters that complain about the traffic that it was their obstructionism that caused it.

So, I sent the above quote to an architect I know who is intimately aware of the process for a major renovation in a Historic District. He said this is patently false. He had also never heard of the scale model issue.

Red, I thought your house was all still the original foot print and that the only addition is the garage with gameroom?

EXACTLY!!!

See what I am talking about? Planning flags everything in the Heights just so that they can see if they have control over it. I had to wait days for them to release their hold. At the time of the permit, my house was not in any proposed or existing district.

Because there will be a couple of Heights historic districts regardless what happens in South Heights, I am resigned to the fact that any permit I apply for will get flagged so that they can verify that HAHC does not have jurisdiction. But, I certainly do not wish to make it even worse by actually giving HAHC jurisdiction to run me through their wringer.

As for your architect friend, all that I can say is that he is less intimately aware than he claims. I saw the model. I saw the variance board. I signed the petition. I watched the neighbor go through it. Hope that's not your architect.

Cute, but hardly an accurate analogy. Other than the game itself, the biggest event, the NFL Experience, is in downtown Dallas the week of the big game. Dallas is benefiting very nicely from the hoopla, especially considering that the city invested nothing in the stadium. The fact is that events and parties are planned all over DFW - there is plenty of $$ for everyone. Let's hope it doesn't snow that week.

And good for FT Worth with the ESPN thing - Sundance Square is perfect for what the network is looking for.

Having put on one of these shindigs ourselves, Houstonians know the benefits, and while the NFL Experience and parties are nice for those that enjoy those things, the real benefit, if there is any, comes from exposure. In this sense, Fort Worth won big, as their downtown will be shown to the nation all week before the game. Dallas did not necessarily lose so much as Fort Worth won.

So with a set monthly date that a homeowner can know months before they even decide to do a project, having an open ended window of time until 15 days before the meeting is a hardship? Sure, if you plan something one night with the intention of starting the next day. I mean really, who doesn't know at least 2 weeks in advance that they are going to make major changes to their home?

I did not have to submit any plans for interior renovations to the HCAC. I do have to get proper construction permits from CoH, which is standard no matter where I live. Where are you getting that information?

Oh, I don't know, personal experience? I don't expect a person on the board of Norhill's review committee to find plan submittals to be a burden. But, to the rest of us, it is another layer of bureaucracy...and a time consuming one at that. At least permitting is open every day. And, the fact that you do not understand the delays that a once a month committee causes is proof to me that you've never been involved in a major renovation...or, apparently, any type of work that runs on deadlines. And, no, a bathroom redo is not major.

Note to historic district supporters: This is the thoughtfulness that awaits you. Review boards and city commissions who believe that you have nothing better to do than make delightful presentations for their amusement.

This is why I oppose historic district status for my neighborhood. Despite heights yankee's long explanation that began with, "I don't know why your neighbor had to go through this process...", the fact is that two of them have. I do not want to have heights yankee or anyone else tell me that they don't know why I had to go through this ridiculous process.

I might point out that Norhill is only designated as an historic district. The new onerous rules make Norhill, all 3 Heights districts, and all other districts the same as Old Sixth Ward's protected district. Those are much more restrictive rules. This is what my neighbors are trying to make permanent. And, while stay at home moms might find it "very easy" to plan around planning commission meetings, the rest of us get to plan an extra couple of days off work to do so, in addition to the two to three trips to permitting to deal with all of the usual rules for building in Houston. In fact, I already had Planning place a hold on my garage last year, simply because I have a Heights address. The contractor had to hold off for nearly a week while we waited on Planning to realize that my house was not in an historic district. I've already gotten a taste of their crap. It is clear to me that heights yankee has not attempted to remodel her house under these new rules (no, replacing one window is hardly a remodel).

BTW, this is what heights yankee calls "very easy".

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/docs_pdfs/2010_HAHC_Meeting_Dates.pdf

The HAHC only meets once a month. It is at 3 pm on Thursdays. You must submit your plans at least 15 days in advance of the meeting to get on the agenda. Miss it by one day and your project just got extended by one month. That's just for permission to proceed to permitting. Bear in mind that this HAHC approval is needed on ALL permits in historic districts. If you have an interior redo, you still must submit the plans to HAHC in order for them to certify that their approval is not needed. Yeah, sounds easy.

Aside from the fact that the executive producer who made the decision is a former Houstonian, her reasoning made perfect sense. ESPN will broadcast from a set in the middle of whatever location they chose for the entire week. They very much need a crowd to add to the appearance of anticipation of the Super Bowl. While smaller, Downtown Fort Worth is more attractive, has more restaurants and bars, and more pedestrians than any of the locations they scouted in Dallas. It simply looks more lively in Sundance Square, which is what ESPN wants to appear on your TV screen.

Having spent several years treading on those brick sidewalks, I couldn't be happier for Fort Worth. Dallas may look shinier, but Fort Worth feels more comfortable.

The HCAC has approved 2 (that I know of, possibly more) front porch additions in my Historic District. They also do not control anything regarding the interior. Sounds like you could have bought your exact same home in Norhill, with the blessing of the HCAC.

Of course, you would have had to post a 4x8 foot sign giving notice of a Variance Request, ask your neighbors to sign a petition saying they do not mind, pay for an architect to not only draw plans for the porch, but to build a scale model of what the finished house and porch would look like, attend a hearing, present your case, and wait for an approval, plus the extra time involved if the HAHC denies or make suggestions for changes. This can take months to accomplish, and cost a bundle, since none of these architects and builders work for free. Time is money, and adding the HAHC to your porch project is plenty of time.

Those who think I am making this up need only wander to the corner of 10th and Oxford to see an example of this in action. My neighbor also had to do it (the scale model that he and his wife had to show me while asking for my approval on the petition was utterly ridiculous). Bear in mind South Heights is not even designated historic yet. But, because it is being considered, we already get to experience the joys of scrutiny by others who do not live here. And none of this extra time and money increases property value. It is simply added cost to the construction project that adds nothing more to the house than a porch without all the extra time and money would add.

I don't recall any of my posts claiming older houses were more efficient. In fact, in another post, I said quite the opposite. My post also did not claim older cars were better, merely that they have not improved fuel economy in the last 30 years.

And, yes, the claim can certainly be made that living in more house than one needs negates the gains in energy efficiency.

You still cherry picked your data...badly. And, while cherry picking a gasoline crisis...and the resulting rush to small automobiles...as your basis allows you to claim that gas cost the same 30 years later (do you also use 1980 to argue that it is cooler in Houston than 30 years ago?), no amount of cherry picking can change the fact that the average cost of a vehicle today ($28,400 according to NADA) is a full 50% higher than inflation adjusted cars of 1980 ($7,200 base to $19,000 in 2010 dollars). Even as a percentage of income, 1980 vehicles cost 57% of annual income, while 2010 vehicles have increased to 61%. Add to that the increased distances traveled by people living in a metro fully twice the size it was in 1980 and no, it is not cheaper.