s3mh

No. I haven't done this in every thread. Why don't you jump on the people that go pro-Walmart on every thread? Sorry, but this board is not just for people who think that everything a developer does is gold. People are free to express themselves on this board however they please. If you can't handle that, you are free to go.

Don't worry. The new Walmart development will be filled with "chef driven" restaurants.

Hear is EXACTLY what I said: "Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood." You said this was a lie because the 380 agreement widened Koehler. When confronted with the fact that the 380 agreement only widened Koehler from Yale up to the end of the Walmart site and did not go into the abutting (this is a term that means next to the Walmart, not at the Walmart) neighborhood, you could not admit that you were WRONG!!! WRONG!!! You looked at the 380 agreement and assumed that Koehler would be widened past the Walmart. You were WRONG!!! I did not lie about anything. What I said was 100% the truth. The 380 agreement provides NOTHING for the abutting West End residential NEIGHBORHOOD (last I checked a 152k sq ft Walmart wasn't a neighborhood). If you want to find the definition of malicious intent, look in the mirror. You called someone a liar, were completely WRONG and tried to change what I said to cover the fact that you didn't look at the details of the 380 agreement, even though you are happy to act like you are an authority on it.

Wait, didn't you just do a long post waxing on about how wonderful the Heights was when it was full of mom and pops? You don't see the consolidation of all business into publicly traded multinationals as being part of the reason we are all alienated from each other and no longer live the life you were fortunate enough to live in the 1950s? And, no. Walmart is not buying to hold. The developer would never get reimbursed for infrastructure improvements (6 million) without the sales and ad valorem tax revenues from Walmart. They are building. If you really wanted the Heights to be more like the 1950s, you would not want a Walmart anywhere near the Heights.

I am saying that Walmart should (and could) pay its own way instead of getting to jump to the front of the line via the 380 agreement. Walmart pays more taxes than I do, but uses waaayyyyy more in public resources than I do. Walmart needs police a zillion times more than I do. Walmart pays employees so little that many make claims for public assistance. Walmart uses more water and sewage treatment than I do. So, they may pay more taxes, but they use way more in terms of resources. Thus, they do not deserve any special treatment just because they are big. And that is my point. The City has decided to make improvements a priority for an out of state multinational company that will simply suck dollars from Houston and spit them out in Arkansas while local businesses struggle mightily to stay open while public infrastructure crumbles around them. When will the City fix 19th street? When you try to park on the street, your car dives into a deep ditch in front of the stores. It has been like that for over a decade. Yet, Walmart shows up and instantly gets public infrastructure paid for by tax dollars (not just the increment, but ALL of the ad valorem taxes) when it was ready and willing to pay for the infrastructure. In fact, by handing all of the ad valorem taxes back to the developer, Walmart is actually taking money out of existing budgets. Thus, Walmart isn't paying its own way and everyone else is.

I could go on for DAYS proving that what you are showing is being done all over this city already and is completely a normal practice that is not refutable or in any way a burden to the surrounding neighbors that live on those streets, but my lunch hour is over, and this Friday sure does feel like a Monday You are right. You could go on for days, but you would never find an example with a Walmart Supercenter.

So, when will they widen Koehler all the way to Shepherd? The City said they did not have any room in the budget for the next five years to improve Yale or Heights (which is interesting because they did have money to do 11th--maybe the whole 380 agreement is just the City's CYA for its poor planning). So, it will be a minimum of 5 years. But by then, the City will start losing tax revenue from 380 agreements like the one for Walmart (the agreement, despite what the uninformed say, is not an increment reimbursement--it is a hand over of ALL ad valorem taxes). So, maybe Koehler residents will have to wait another 7-8 years for the tax reimbursement to run its course. It will still be rather warm in hell by that time, so it looks like I may have a point.

It is only a bald face lie to someone who doesn't take the time to actually educate himself on what the agreement actually says. Koehler gets widened only up to Bonner on the western edge of the development (http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/public_infra.html). Then it goes right back to an 18' road with the same old drainage ditches through the residential neighborhood (last I checked 1150 feet was just enough pavement to get from Heights to Bonner--for those of us who actually pay attention to details). Anyone exiting the development who sees a long line of traffic at the Koehler/Yale intersection will turn left on Koehler to cut through to Shepherd or Patterson. As soon as they pass Bonner, they will be on an 18' wide road. There was talk with residents about widening Koehler all the way to Shepherd. But, Mr. Icken apparently doesn't think too highly of people in the area. So, it never got included in the 380 agreement. Thus, the rule in Houston is that big developers and multinational corporations get infrastructure improvements when they want it and on the taxpayers dime (even if they state publicly that they can afford to pay for it and would pay for it if necessary) and the residents and small business owners get infrastructure improvements when hell freezes over. In the future, before you call someone a liar, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

p. 33: http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf Or go to http://www.washingtonheightsdistrict.com/ And thanks for pointing out that it is in the West End and not the Heights. I guess you will be opposed to the Walmart because of the traffic that will end up on 18' wide residential streets in the West End like Koehler. Funny how the 380 agreement did not provide for any infrastructure improvements for the abutting West End residential neighborhood. But I will be glad to hear some people stand up for the West End.

There were a bunch of amendments to the amended ordinance. Clutterbuck withdrew the one keeping existing districts under the 90 day waiver. I think 25% got taken down to 10% as a compromise with Pennington who wanted to have an automatic revote.

The amended historic ordinance passed. Clutterbuck was swayed by a preservationist at yesterday's open meeting. The turnout of supporters of the amended ordinance out numbered those against yesterday by over 2-1.

Sorry for the nuance. I will be explicit: The City dismisses the concerns of people in the Heights in deference to a developer. Developers are not infallible. Just look at the Alabama/Kirby parking lot. Many of the parking spaces are too close together. Developers are people. They screw things up all the time. The City needs to listen to the public and not blindly jump on the developer's bandwagon. There. That wasn't so hard to understand.

It shows a city government that doesn't care what the community thinks. It shows a city government that knew Walmart would be controversial with the community and wanted to do everything they could to help the developer weather the storm rather then represent the concerns of the community (almost to the point of misrepresenting the anchor of the development after the news leak about Walmart). It shows a city government that is bought by the developers. And if you think the city has been proactive, you are nuts. Even to this day, no one has said a word about how traffic will work. The developer claims that he can magically add a left turn lane to Yale St. for Koehler while putting in extra wide side walks, not moving the City's right of way a single inch and not backing up traffic onto the new feeder road. All of the noise, light pollution, crime issue were supposed to be addressed in an operating agreement with Walmart. Seen any sign of that agreement? But what do we, the silly people of the Heights, know. We are not a brilliant developer like Ainbinder. Just look at his amazing development on Kirby and W Alabama. You know, the one with the Borders and Pesce. You know, the one with the parking spaces that are so tight you can't open your door to get out of your car (much less to get back in if you manage the former). But we should just trust a guy that can't put parking spaces far enough apart to cram a Walmart Supercenter in the middle of a residential neighborhood with only a four lane road for access because developers are special human beings with magical powers. And we shouldn't expect our government to look out for us. Our taxes don't pay their salaries, developer's campaign contributions do. We should all just go back to the Heights and wait and see what marvelous faux victorian townhome cluster the developers try to cram into our neighborhood.

The Heights needs homes like these about as much as the Heights needs a Walmart.

Wisdom? Is it wise to give a developer tax money to do infrastructure improvements that the developer could afford to do and was prepared to do without our tax dollars? Did you see the letter in the Chron from the Ashby highrise developer? They paid $500k to upgrade the sewer system. They did that because it used to be the rule that if the upgrade only benefited the development, the developer had to pay. Now the rule is if a developer wants to build, the City will provide all the infrastructure upgrades needed for free. It doesn't even matter if the developer wants a 380 agreement. The city will give them one anyway. And is anyone keeping track of these? 20 mil to InTown Homes; 6 mil to Walmart, ?? to the Dairy. In a few years we will all be wondering why the City's tax revenues have not kept up with the City's growth. The reason will be that we gave away millions to developers. And what is the wisdon in giving a developer $300,000.00 for onsite drainage detention? Yes, that is right. $300,000.00 for drainage improvements to private property. What is the wisdom of paying the developer $58 per sq ft for a right of way when market value is $38 and tax appraisal is $22? What is the wisdom of financing improvements over an unlimited repayment period at an interest rate that is only capped by state usury limits? What is the wisdom of putting contingencies and overhead at 20%? (Council responded that they will only get paid for what they bill the City and do not necessarily get 20%. Yeah, like a developer is going to leave any of that money on the table. They will get 20%). 380 Agreements take away needed future tax revenues. They are supposed to be used to spur economic development. They are not supposed to be a creative financing vehicle for the City. And they should not be used to promote development in an area that has been a hotbed of development. The City should be using 380 Agreements to get stores on the south and east side. They need a Walmart. If the Yale St Walmart gets built, there will be 3 Walmarts within a 6-7 mi radius, but nothing inside the loop to the south or east. Why not let the developer pay out of pocket for everything that he has to upgrade and then use the new tax revenues to pay for the rest of the upgrades after the development opens? That would save the city millions.

Actually, people have made piles of suggestions. They were all ignored. Even what the developer said he was going to do at a public meeting did not even make it into the 380 agreement. All the 380 agreement requires onsite is that the developer try to construct in the style of the Heights. That is it. The developer is not required to put any trees on site, not required to build any walkways on the property, not required to keep any particular building configuration, and not even required to do anything other than build 75k sq ft of retail with an anchor. The developer is free to do whatever he wants, unless you really think the City is going to file suit to enforce the requirement that the developer "endeavor" to build in the style of the Heights. This whole meme about community input and the 380 agreement being a tool to get the developer to make concessions has been a bunch of PR bull to try to get people to think that this is going to be good for the community. In the actual agreement, tax payers put as much money into the so-called "community improvements" as the developer gets in onsite storm water detention. And the developer doesn't have to do anything onsite. NOTHING. Not even what he said he was going to do in a public meeting!!! This 380 agreement is simply an accounting trick to push the cost of public infrastructure improvements on to future City budgets. This makes the Mayor look good and leaves a budget mess for whoever is her successor.

Wrong. Look at the City's development manual, Chap 9. I have even heard CM Costello talk about this. The developer is required to do additional onsite detention for increased impervious cover. They get credit for the previous drainage infrastructure, but if they increase impervious cover, they have to comply with the dentention requirements. Why else would the City be willing to pay for 7 acre feet of detention in the 380 agreement? The developer did attach a "conceptual" plan to the 380 agreement. The entire site is pretty much impervious except for a few strips here and there. And, again, the point is why do a 380 agreement when you do not even know for certain what the developer is going to do? The developer hasn't submitted a traffic study. The City has been doing counts too. 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.

Good point. That is what is completely wrong with this process. The developer has not submitting a single permit application for approval. The developer has not even submitted a traffic study yet. So, given that no one actually knows what the developer will submit, you are right. We don't know what infrastructure improvements will or won't be needed. The developer basically gets everything done up front for free by tax payers before anyone actually looks to see what is needed. But, there are some things that are pretty obvious without having final plans. The developer is obligated to do .5 acre feet for each acre of new impervious cover. Looking at aerial photography, about half of the site were dirt pipe yards. The finished product will be mostly impervious cover. So, it is not an unfair guestimate that the development will add 7-8 acres of impervious cover (20 acre lot). That means at least 3.5 acre feet of storm water detention. The 380 agreement already obligates the tax payers to pay for 7 acre feet. So they are making sure the developer is covered. So there. Now, WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT??? Do you have any credible no-biased data? Good thing you aren't in City government.

Translation, this stuff is over my head, so I will just call you names.

Nope. And isn't it interesting how you have nothing substantive to say after I have posted very troubling information about the 380 agreement. And another fun fact: 380 agreements must be limited to 10 years per City ordinance. The Ainbinder 380 agreement has no limit!!! The City has to refund ad valorem and sales tax until all amounts have been paid in full. But I guess you care more about whether someone is approving of my posts on a message board than whether the City is being fleeced by the developer and Walmart.

And another nugget from the "final" 380 agreement. By ordinance, 380 agreements must be limited to 10 years. The City even noted this in its power point presentation to the community. Yet, the 380 agreement has no limit on its term. The City is obligated to keep handing over ad valorem and sales taxes until every dollar is repaid.

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.

Wow. Bill Clinton would be proud of that rationalization. The prolem is that the 380 obligates the City to pay interest even if the developer does not incur interest. The mayor clearly meant that there would be no reimbursement for interest. In her defense, it was probably an assumption on her part and not an intentional misrepresentation. However, she is out pushing this agreement in the media and should know what is in it. And the 6 million mostly goes to improvements that the City will require to handle increased demands on roads and drainage. (Only about 366k goes to "desires"--jogging trail, bridge painting, etc.). In fact, the City really doesn't even know what will really be required. There is no traffic study yet. No one has a clue yet how to handle traffic signals and crosswalks. I would not be surprised to see this agreement go from 6 million to 8 million as more and more will be needed once the City figures out how to make this happen.

contracts are very mechanical. If you say "developer shall . . . .", you get what you want. If you say "developer will endeavor", you get what the developer wants. It is the Jedi rule of contracts. Do or do not. There is no try. This agreement is not the City leaning on the developer, it is the developer leaning on the City. The developer gets to build exactly what he wants to build. Show me one sentence in the 380 agreement that requires the developer to "build in the best interests of the community"? There is no requirement in the agreement that the developer adhere to the plans presented to the public. All they are required to do is to build at least 75k sq ft with an anchor and "endeavor" to make it look good. 380 agreements from other jurisdictions routinely require the developer to build out as promised in submitted plans, commence building within a certain time frame, and bear the risk of insufficient tax increments. And remember, the developer has stated publicly that he can do the development without the 380 agreement. The whole point of tax increment funding is to get developers to do projects they would not be willing to do without assistance. In this case, as the mayor said to KUHF, the City approached the developer about the 380 after the developer informed the City of its plans. This is just the City using the 380 agreement as a form of public financing without the strings attached (inconvenient strings, like voter apporoval).

10,000 car trips is the number established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 8th Edition. It is probably a low estimate because they actually think that a supercenter open 24 hours generates less traffic that one that is not 24 hours (logic behind that idea is not apparent). So, while you all were busy calling each other names on the internet, the City put out a copy of the final version of the 380 agreement. (http://www.houstontx.gov/koehler/koehler380.pdf) Here is what the City represented that the agreement would be: Interest free loan Repayment tied to economic performance of development (i.e. developer bears risk of insufficient tax revenues generated to repay infrastructure improvements) Agreement would require certain architecture, landscaping etc. on the development Reimbursements would only be for public works projects done offsite. No money to be used to do any work on Ainbinder's land Here is what we got: Interest to be reimbursed at developer's cost, only capped by the Tex usury statute. If developer does not incur any financing costs (pays cash for improvements), then city still pays interest at prime + 1%. City is obligation to reimburse is absolute. The agreement is structured so that the City actually has to purchase all of the improvements. In fact, the developer retains a security interest in the improvements until reimbursed in full. (That would be a wierd foreclosure auction: Yale St. from I-10 to Center Rd, opening bid 1.2 million). In short, no risk to the developer. The City is even required to issue bonds if needed to repay the developer. The tax abatement is only a repayment option. Agreement on architecture is virtually non-existent. Developer only has to "endeavor" to build in style of the heights. City is paying @300k for onsite drainage detention. That is right. The tax payers are paying to improve Walmart's drainage. Will City employees have to work as greeters? And a few other nuggets: taxpayers pay for developer's legal fees and time spent preparing and negotiating the 380 agreement! Also, the Developer has the discretion to decide whether to do any of the improvements (certain improvements are required if the developer builds to mitigate drainage and traffic impacts, but under the plain language, the developer could simply decide to blow off the so-called community improvements--jogging trail, bridge improvements, etc.). And if you are keeping score, the community gets $366,000 in improvements (jogging trail/landscaping on Heights, Westside park, Yale and Heights bridge work) and the developer gets at least $308,000 for onsite stormwater detention (and probably another 10-15k for preparing and negotiating the 380 agreeement, if they used really cheap legal counsel). So, for all this talk about how wonderful the 380 agreement is for the community, it turns out that as much money goes directly into private hands as goes to public improvements and there is really no guaranty that the development will be architecturally consistent with the Heights and no requirement for onsite landscaping, permeable pavement and a long list of other things that could have been easily included. Thus, it is clear that this agreement has nothing to do with getting the developer to do good things for the community. It is simply using the developer as a lender of last resort for infrastructure improvements that the City should have been prepared to fund. The developer said openly that he does not need it. The Mayor said on KUHF that the developer did not ask for it. It was the City's idea. But the City has very detailed ordinances on debt obligations. This 380 agreement is simply an end run around them. And it is a complete taxpayer giveaway. The City rolled over on this agreement in a big way.