s3mh

So, you get to attack me and call my posts "obnoxious" and ridicule the traffic numbers I have provided, but I am supposed to just sit back and take it? If you are not an authority on traffic and know nothing more than what you see out the window on your daily drive, then why are you slamming me by name on this issue? I have done the research, seen documents related to traffic analysis for the site and researched the traffic requirements in the city's design manual. But, I am just supposed to sit back and let you and everyone else ridicule me because you have driven down Yale St? I can take all the attacks from people on this forum. But, the idea that I am not allowed to return fire because I represent a minority view on this board is pretty offensive. I will relax when other relax. I will respond to attacks when attacked.

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder. And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet. As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

According to the 8th edition whatever you call it traffic manual, a Walmart supercenter generates 10,000 car trips a day. This number has been controversial because it is based on the assumption that a 24 hour store will have fewer trips than a store with limited hours. Thus, a CNBC documentary about Walmart stated that the real number of car trips for a Walmart supercenter is 22,000. Both figures are well sourced and not made up. The only thing that is mysterious is why you think you can jump in to this and claim some sort of authority on the issue when it is clear that you know nothing about the traffic issue. And thanks for saying that it isn't in the Heights. So what? Really, so what? And just because it used to be a steel mill doesn't mean that any use for the site is compatible. The neighborhood has changed immensely since the site was industrial. The immediately surrounding neighborhood is seeing a lot of new residential construction in an area that was a no-go zone just a few years ago. Put in a giant Walmart and you kill off a neighborhood that is in the midst of a revival. Put in a responsible develoment (mixed use/smaller grocer), and you compliment the neighborhood and spur further investment. It is a simple choice, stuff a suburban Walmart supercenter and watch all the dollars get sucked out to Arkansas or develop something that will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

What evidence? Do you have the traffic counts? Have you done the traffic impact analysis? Does the drainage plan meet the standards of the city's design manual? Is there no diversion of floodwaters that will impact surrounding residents? Are you just going to trust the City's bureacracy to protect the citizens from an incompatible development? Or would it be better to have someone who really has the community's interest at heart analyzing these issues with qualified professionals to make sure the City bureacracy doesn't rubber stamp a Walmart because the City is afraid of developers after getting sued by the Ashby developers and has too many connections with the developer and Walmart to be trusted? If you don't believe me, go around town and look at where all the Walmart's are sited. You do not need to be a traffic engineer to see that putting a supercenter in the Heights with a street like Yale as the only thoroughfare access is completely unprecedented in Houston. Most Walmart supercenters are sited on two thoroughfares or directly off of a feeder road, not on a single road (Yale) that may end up with 5 traffic signals in just over a half mile and a grade separation just a few hundred feet from the main entrance. So, no. I am not promoting Don Quixote-ism. Houston does not have zoning, but does have standards. Those opposing this development have every right and an important duty to see that these standards are properly applied. If the traffic problems can't be mitigated, they can't get permits. If they drainage plan does not meet the design manual's standards, they can't get permits. The idea that you can do whatever you want on your land without zoning is just flatly false. If you want to trust the City with how this will all turn out, that is your problem. Don't go around telling people that everything is going to be fine just because you think it is and trust the City.

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.

So, you are both a traffic engineer and a hydrologist? Or do you think that we shouldn't bother those people with important issues like that and leave it up to you because you have a computer and an internet connection?

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.

Bull. Did you have to through out your tenants? Are you unable to use the property as a residence? Grow up. We live in a complex society with many interrelated rights and responsibilities. We do not live in the wild west. 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. Yes, government bureaucracies are not fun and easy. But they are that way because there are piles of people out there who think they are better than everyone else and cannot be expected to follow the law. The funny thing is that I know people who live under historic preservation laws in Boston, and they thought this ordinance was a complete joke because it was so incredibly weak. They couldn't believe we were allowed to add a two story addition to a single story bungalow and only had to sumbit very basic documentation for approval and did not have to hire experts to certify the work before submitting for approval. If you are looking for stupid idiots, look at the people who knock down bungalows and replace them with giant monsters, or the people who do idiotic crappy diy rennovations on bungalows, leaving them looking like a bad version of a KB home from the burbs. They are the ones that made this necessary. Property rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Historic preservation ordinances have been upheld around the nation (and in Texas) against takings claims. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are a protected property right, not your wildest dreams. You are now in a historic district. If you don't like it, sell. We won't miss you at all.

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.

This is what I don't understand. What you are basically saying is that being involved in the affairs of your community is only worth it if there is a realistic chance you will get what you want. Otherwise, we all have to just shut up and trust Michael Ainbinder to do what is right for the community. Frankly, no one who is against the walmart thinks that they have some silver bullet. We know much better than anyone on this message board what we are up against. But, the idea that a battle that cannot be won should not be fought is just the kind of idea that help make Walmart what it is and enables a land use system that allows one guy to determine the character of an entire area. I don't care whether I win or lose. What I care about is that people know that my community is organized and ready to fight developers that do not respect the community. We may lose against Walmart, but might win against the Rutland Highrise or whatever stupid idea comes up next.

Really. I have to spell everthing out? Target is on Taylor. Taylor had enough capacity to support the additional traffic because it was not a major commuter route. Walmart is going to use Yale as its main access. Yale does not have enough capacity to support the additional traffic because it is a major commuter route and cannot even be expanded to add a dedicated left turn lane. come on. That really isn't that hard to understand.

what is dumb is the attempt to discredit the anti-Walmart points by questioning why there wasn't a similar opposition to an entirely different development. 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. It is on a road that can be widened enough to have a signalized intersection to the entrance with dedicated left turn lanes, while still having two lanes of through traffic in each direction. It will eventually have direct driveway access to the new feeder rd. It is not on a main commuter route to downtown from I-10. It does not send overflow traffic throw residential neighborhoods on 21 ft streets. It did not recieve 6.05 million in tax payer dollars, including 300k for onsite stormwater detention on private property. And it was not the third Target to be built within a five mile radius. And a lot of people who did not fuss when Target went in are making their voice heard now because a lot of the promises about the Target development were BS. Traffic inside Woodland Heights is much worse. Watson is now a steady stream of traffic where it used to be a quiet neighborhood street. The developer also promised boutiques and nice restaurants, but delivered payless, radio shack and ATT store. Promised mature shade trees on the site gave way to parking lots of solid concrete. So, if anything the Target has taught the community to be more involved and more vigilant.

If anyone here thinks the word "bohemian" belongs in the same argument as "Walmart", then there is absolutely no point in arguing with you. You have gone completely outside the realm of all sensiblity. Walmart represents the corporate homogenization of all things consumer and the death of any connection between producers, retailers and consumers. Walmart is the antithesis of the anti-bohemian. And, for those who were wondering how the apartments would be cleared for chef driven restaurants (apparently if you are against a Walmart you are elitist, but if you destroy affordable housing for retail space for boutiques and chef driven restaurants, you get a free pass), the developer is going to non-renew their leases. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7765524 This is how it played out at Allen House and is generally the way it is done, unless the developer has enough cash to pay people off and get an agreement to vacate early. Aside from the irony that the developer is kicking out the very people who are in the heart of Walmart's demographic, why doesn't the City use 380 agreements or other development assistance to build affordable housing inside the loop? Instead, the city is using development tools to kick low income people outside the loop and build expensive homes inside the loop (see Frank Liu's 20 million dollar 380 agreement to build homes in the 300-500k price range inside the loop). Now who is the elitist?

I don't think the laissez faire, bohemian attitudes were meant to attract big box suburban retailers to the area. And the arbitrary geographical distinction is the worst argument I have heard, second only to the elitist/racist one. So what if it isn't in within the plat for the heights as recorded in the Harris County real property records. And if you are so laissez faire, bohemian, you would equally support people's rights to speak out against what they consider to be a nuisance and detriment to their community. But you are not really Mr. Heights laissez faire/bohemain. You are just another right wing conservative who favors the rights of giant corporations to suck money out of a community over the right of the community to have some influence over the quality of life in their area.

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. To say that you can add 10,000-20,000 cars to a road that is already rated a C in level of service and have no effect on traffic is just ridiculous. But, of course the pro-development people get to say whatever they want without any authority, but when people in the community complain with real statistics in hand, it is just a pretext for an irrational hate of Walmart. The infrastructure around the Walmart site cannot support a supercenter. I have heard this from real estate professionals and traffic engineers. It is a completely over the top development that will ruin the area when combined with the additional burden of feeder traffic. We will regret it for decades or can stop it now.

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. Coming from I-10 W to downtown, the best option to avoid the traffic that build near 45 will be to exit the new Yale exit, take Yale down to Memorial and zip to downtown without a single traffic light until Bagby. Hieghts is no solution. You can get stuck at the train tracks, if you can get through the proposed light at the new Koehler cut through. You take the cloverleaf to get onto Memorial. No traffic light. Every other way has many long lights and traffic snarls. Shepherd to memorial has a combination of train traffic and a very long light to turn east on Memorial. Studemont has no access to memorial. Instead, you have to wait several cycles to go east on Allen Parkway. Yale to Washington to downtown is just stupid. Piles of traffic signals. Taylor has trains, Target intersections and little benefit as you still wait in the bulk of the traffic. Thus, everyone will take Yale to Memorial. Add a Walmart, a traffic signal on Koehler and Yale (just under 1/10 of a mile from the new feeder, and you have a monster of a traffic mess. The traffic issue is real and substantial. If the traffic plan worked, it would have been approved by now.

Yale to Crosstimbers. Gets you there in a jiffy. 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. Add in the traffic from all the new retail development (Walmart will be the bulk of the traffic, but the entire area is getting built up) and you all will be heading out to Northline faster than you can say "I hate the traffic on Yale now that the Walmart is there." That is because the access to the Northline Walmart is actually designed for a large retail center. Yale is not. It can't and won't be widened. Instead, they are going to put in a bunch of turn lanes and actually have only a single lane of through traffic north bound from Center to Koehler in order to have left turn lanes into the Walmart. Even with all your tax dollars going to try to make it work, it won't. But that has never been the real issue for you all. It has just been a chance to lash out at people who dare to organize to oppose a stupid move by one wealthy developer. You all hate the idea that people have the right to assemble and would prefer that everyone just shut up and let the Heights turn into New Katy. No dice. Our community will fight this development every day until the bitter end.

Why? They have nothing to do with Walmart. And Materene's points are completely inconsistent with prior posts waxing on poetically about how wonderful the Heights was in the 1950s. Now Materene thinks the Heights was kind of a dump in the 50s and we should all be glad that builders want to tear down bungalows to build giant houses for rich people. But Materene didn't like how Heights Blvd only had homes for wealthy people in the 50s. And to answer the question, people have been restoring homes in the Heights for decades. My little bungalow was renovated in the 1980s to enlarge the kitchen and make a utility room where the back porch used to be. It was renovated again in 2005 with a complete updating of the kitchen and bath. I have done a rewire, major plumbing and drainage repairs. And there is plently left to do. Hundreds of residents in the Heights have invested heavily in renovating and restoring historic homes. Anyone with a sense of history in the Heights would appreciate that. But, Matarene has this wierd love/hate relationship with the Heights of old. So, I am not really sure what the point is. And for all the grousing about the activism in the Heights, it is clear that the resentment is really jealousy. Houstonians are generally alienated from their neighbors thanks to sprawl developments, HOAs, and generic strip mall developments. The Heights has retained a character and community that is closely guarded by a very active citizenship. Houston has tried to sprawl-ify the Heights by imposing suburan sized homes and strip mall developments on the Heights. The Heights has fought back and is disliked for doing so because success for Heights residence means a barrier for those who love their sprawl, but want to live in the Heights. Historic preservation means smaller home size that is not compatible with those who can't live without their 3000 sq ft Perry Home. Anti-Walmart means that those who want sprawl retail in their backyard will have to drive an extra 5-7 minutes to get to the other two walmarts that are opening around the Heights.

And you think the Yale location will be any better?

Bravo. That was some pretty hard work to try to rationalize the City's apparent (soon to be obvious) failure to follow the ordinance. You should bill your time to Mayor Parker. Maybe she can get you a 380 agreement for tax payer reimbursement. Some people are getting them even when they don't ask for them. Come on. Do you really think that it would be hard for someone in the City to find the application (which is defined in the ordinance as the documentation, not some form--although knowing City government there is probably a form too) for one of the most controversial projects in the City since the Ashby Highrise? Your critique of the HPs journalism is really just an exercise in extreme naivete (sorry, can't figure out how to do an accent e on this thing). If the City had it, they would have forked it over. The City obviously doesn't have it and is trying to create it after the fact or get the City attorney to cover their butts as to why they didn't have to get one. The mayor said to the media that the developer did not ask for the 380 agreement, the City offered it. Why would the City make the developer apply for something the City had already decided the developer should get?

You are in luck. It just opened on I-45 and Crosstimbers. Go get your low prices.

Ok, here is one: City gave Ainbinder a 380 agreement without the application required by ordinance. http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/10/heights_walmart_ainbinder_380.php Must be nice to just have the City give you things. Does this mean a strip mall developer can sue the City under equal protection if the city doesn't give the next strip mall developer a 380 agreement? Are free infrastructure upgrades going to be given away to every developer from now on? Anyone keeping tabs on how much future tax revenue we are giving away (Looks to me @40 mil so far, give or take depending on cost of financing and how you value the dairy's 380 agreement).

He said walmart bought the apartment complex. He did not say "I heard Walmart bought the apartment complex, anyone know whether this is true?" He gets on the historic ordinance thread and tells everyone the new ordinance could give the city the power to dictate which political yard signs could go on people's lawn (complete bull). You all give him a pass because he is pro-developer/anti-ordinance. But, you hold me to a near-peer review standard because I hold an opposing viewpoint.

so we can now stop all the talk about depriving people in the Heights of a Walmart. There is your Walmart. Enjoy. And, if you can wait another year, there will be another on Silber and I-10. Enjoy. With two Walmarts within a five mile radius, we can do just fine without one in the Heights, as we have been doing for over 100 years.

You are not an elitist, but you are misinformed. Walmart has not bought any land yet. They will buy the 15 acre tract west of Yale St where they will cram a suburban supercenter. Ainbinder bought the tract between Yale and Heights. Ainbinder is putting in a retail pad there that will house multiple tenants. Ainbinder is also giving up a right of way to the City across the property to connect Koehler from Yale to Heights. Just wait until you see the traffic mess that intersection will cause.