s3mh

It is funny that you are supporting complete handouts to a wealthy developer and multinational corporation as well as idiotic decision making by the City of Houston just because you disagree with people who oppose Walmart on ethical grounds. The City has wrongly grandfathered this project from drainage requirments. The developer should be required to put in detention for every acre of permeable land. 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. But the City is giving this developer a free pass to help squeeze a Walmart on to the site. So, when the City does something that is clearly wrong, you are ok with it if it ticks off people who are ethically opposed to Walmart. And the 380 agreement is an unprecedented tax giveaway to a developer. 6 million dollars to a developer who has publically stated that he doesn't need it, will build anyway and in doing so will only forego the neighborhood fluff. But you are fine with giving away tax dollars to wealthy developers and fortune 500 corporations as long as it makes people opposed to Walmart's business practices mad. There is another reality in this world. People have power. The guy with the big wallet does not always win and should not always win. The City has not approved drainage permits and may be compelled to rethink grandfathering the lot (there is already pressure from some on council on this issue). If grandfathering was reversed, the developer would have to either give up his own pads on the site or get Walmart to reduce its sq ft. Could be a deal breaker depending on how contingencies are addressing in the purchase agreement. And, if the 380 agreement dies (it very well may, CM Gonzalez and others have tagged the agreement for InTown Homes), the developer may not be able to do the road work and may have to wait for the City to get it done. Again, depending on the purchase agreement, that could be a deal killer for Walmart. That doesn't even take into consideration traffic. Mayor Parker and council all know that if the development wrecks the area, they will never be elected again in the City of Houston. They know they are in big trouble on this one. But they cannot come out and shout from mountain tops that they are against it for fear of another Ashby Highrise lawsuit.

http://www.ktrh.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=newscasts_c.xml The mayor's own words: "there are still a lot of things at play, nothing has been decided" (And she said "brownfield", I don't think brownstones are efficient buildings for steel mills) She said nothing about city council supporting this. She just said that generally given a choice between a brownfield and a remediated site with a modern shopping plaza, she would take the latter. She talked a lot about the traffic problems due to the new I-10 frontage and had no answers. Maybe you listened to a different mayor on another talk show. Or maybe you are applying your powers of interpretation that got you to conclude that the historic ordinance would circumvent people's constitutionally protected free speech rights to place political signs on their property. HEB on Buffalo Speedway is 68k sq ft. They were interested in doing the same concept at Yale. The City has wrongly decided to granfather the drainage for the property. There is growing concern from Council about this decision. The property should include dentention as just less than half was permeable (dirt yard). The City has assumed, perhaps all the way back to when it was a refinery, that the entire lot was covered in concrete. It was not. If developed responsibly, a 68k sq ft HEB plus sufficient drainage would not leave much room for additional retail pads. You would not see the same burdens on traffic and would see much better outcome in terms of drainage with proper detention. So, the outcome is not the same if Walmart is replaced by another anchor. The outcome would be significantly different.

Show me one sentence in any of my posts where I have said that 380 money will be used to build on private land? The fact of the matter is that you have no response to what I have said and have to make me say something I never said in order to sound like you are getting somewhere. I have candidly stated numerous times that the City is using the 380 agreement as a weird financing tool to get Yale and Heights improved to meet the increased traffic of the new frontage roads (an economically stupid tool if the developer is reimbursed for interest that is beyond what the City could get from muni bonds). But, you don't understand that this is potentially a terrible deal for the public because you just sit on message boards and try to bully people who don't agree with you instead of going out and finding out what is really going on. The 380 agreement doesn't just cover streets, it covers drainage imrpovements. Those drainage improvements are not just needed because they are improving streets. It is mostly needed because they are paving over @20 acres of land for the development (there is also 380 money going to improving the grading on White Oak Bayou so the portion of the development between Yale and Heights doesn't flood). So, the 380 agreement is not going to pay to build the Walmart, but it is going to pay for the drainage improvements the development requires. The improvements to Yale will happen when the City can afford to do them on its own terms and not because a developer wants it done now. The fact of the matter is that the developer has no choice but to do the Yale improvements because if they wait for the City to do it, they will end up losing road access during construction on Yale. That is economic suicide for a new development. Ainbinder and Walmart have plenty of cash to do all 6 million in improvements and then some. They do not need taxpayer money. This is the very first time a developer has recieved a tax abatement to do infrastructure improvements outside of a TIRZ in the City of Houston. Piles of retail developments have been profitably built (including Ainbinder's RO shopping center) while paying for infrastructure improvements without tagging tax payers. 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.

Ainbinder doesn't have a single permit. In fact, it is still not clear whether TxDOT has approved the connection of Bass to the new frontage road. So, no battles have been lost. They are just beginning. Making the development attractive to the public makes the developer money. An ugly FM 1960-esque development isn't going to attract the kind and quantity of retail that an attractive development with updated infrastructure would. Why should tax payers have to pay to make an area nicer for a developer when the developer can more than afford to do that himself? The position on the 380 agreement would be the same regardless of the anchor. In Austin, they have all but abandonned 380 agreements for retail after a voter initiative almost banned them. 380 agreements for retail developments are just wealth transfers to developers. For Walmart, they need this store to bring in piles of customers to make it pay off. If word on the street is true, Walmart paid as much as 20x what it would pay for land to buy the 15 acres off Yale. Add to that the enviro remediation they need to do and this store is starting off with pretty huge sunk costs. If they drop the usual crappy suburban walmart, they will lose money bigtime. They will need to make this store very, very pretty to get people to skip past a very nice new Kroger and Wholefoods. They will do it with or without the 380 agreement because they have no choice. Also, there is a huge difference between a 24 hour 152k sq ft supercenter and a 70k sq ft grocery store. There is no comparison in terms of traffic, crime, parking lot coverage, and truck traffic. It is the difference between 20k cars a day and 7k. It is the difference between a 600+ car parking lot and a 250 car parking lot. It is the difference between 3 police calls a day and three a month. And HEB doesn't just throw a different facade on their stores and plant a few rows of trees in response to community concerns. HEB has offered to do bi-level parking, allow space for a farmer's market and give up a portion of the property for a park at the proposed Montrose location. Walmart has paid lip service to the Heights and West End in comparison.

No one knows what the developer will have to do and won't have to do absent the 380 agreement because the City appears to be assuming it will pass City council. Turn lanes may be needed to keep TxDOT from getting pissed about interference with the feeder road (although I doubt it will help). Furthermore, I think the developer would do most of the improvements anyway. The improvements are really there to make the development more attractive. No one in their right mind is going to cross six lanes of feeder traffic to add an extra 1/2 mile to their morning run south of I-10. People in the Heights would rather a dirty old bridge than 20,000 additional cars on Yale (developer's numbers). And what kind of message is this sending to developers? If you want to get free infrastructure improvements, just make sure you do something over-the-top to upset the community so the City will try to please everyone with a few extra trees and wider sidewalks? It is not a carrot, it is a free five course meal at Tony's with a bottle of 2005 Bordeaux for someone who is already a regular at Tony's. As everyone knows on this board, when retail developments are done right, they develop a ton of cash for the developers. In fact, there are few endeavors in life that offer a greater rate of return than a retail development. So, there is absolutely no reason to provide retail developments with any assistance when they will make plenty of money and do not need the abatements (Ainbinder said he would build without the 380).

Your right to the tax abatement has vested. The City cannot apply laws retroactively. You should be able to safely vote to crush all the bungalows, but might want to have a word with an attorney to be sure the City can't take away your abatement. And the fact that you are willing to reap the benefits of the historic ordinance but do not want the ordinance to do what it is supposed to do (protect historic buildings) is not very neighborly.

Yale will be the main access point for the Walmart part of the development. CoH traffic people admitted that with the new feeder, Yale and Heights will be a mess, but did not say what they were prepared to do with the development to mitigate the traffic problems. The developer did not have many specifics on their traffic plan. It looks like they want to add lights at Koehler/Yale and Koehler(extension)/Heights and a dedicated left turn lane on the upper portion of Yale. Not sure whether that will make Yale 5 lanes, 6 lanes, or just 4 with the middle lane a turn lane by the development. Either way, the Koehler lights will be just barely 1/10th of a mile from the lights for the new I-10 frontage road. That would mean there is potential for the light at Yale and Koehler to back traffic up to the I-10 frontage road, causing grid lock. Or, put another way, how many times have you turned off of a 3 lane feeder road to only find another traffic light less than 1/10th of a mile away? The City wants the 380 agreement so they can basically use Ainbinder to finance the improvements to Yale and Heights that will be needed after the frontage road expansion. But the 380 agreement will go way beyond that. It will pay for improvements to Koehler and Bass, drainage improvements that are mostly to offset the burdens of the development. The candy for the community is a very tiny percentage of the 6 million. A jogging trail is a one day project (dig out the path and fill with crushed granite). The bridge improvements are easy too. Fix up the light fixtures and clean up the cement railings. Oh, and when they are done, they expect the Heights Association to maintain the esplanade. It is unclear what infrastructure improvements the developer will have to make absent the 380 agreement. Certainly, they will have to improve Bass and Koehler to handle truck traffic and drainage burdens. And they won't have to make Heights Blvd and the bridges pretty. But the reality is that the developer has said that they can do the project without the 380 agreement. That means that tax payers are giving the developer free money.

http://www.click2houston.com/video/24666506/index.html at 26 sec. Walmart did not confirm anything in the Chronicle article. In another article after they signed the purchase agreement, they still would not commit to sq ft.

Someone has been spotted in a white pickup truck taking Walmart signs. Many have reported having their signs stolen. What do you think Walmart execs would say? "We don't think we have a snowball's chance"? The City hasn't issued a single permit. The variance for the Koehler reverse curve has been tagged. CM Gonzalez has come out against the development, with others very close to following suit.

Channel 2 reported 200k sq ft a week or two ago on a news story that featured an interview with a Walmart spokesman. Aside from that, wed night was the first time Walmart would commit to sq ft. Dirt bar has been sold with the apartments (I didn't even know that was a bar). Both will be demolished. An interesting note about the site plan is that it is unclear whether TxDOT has approved the connection of Bass and the new frontage. The orignal plan for the frontage extension did not include the connection. TxDOT has yet to respond to inquiries on the issue. The developers may have put the cart before the horse on that one. Stay tuned.

The delete was very much deserved. There are very serious civic issues at stake here that are worthy of debate. The City is giving 6 million dollars to a developer not because the developer cannot do the project without it (Ainbinder admitted that last night), but to try to keep the developer from ruining the neighborhood. Another 20 million has been proposed to go to Intown Homes to build houses in the 200-500k range along 1-10 between TC Jester and the Energy Corridor. All this at a time when the city is in a budget deficit and has already maxed out TIRZ tax incentives. But we can't discuss this because you think opponents are bad people. The city has grandfathered the entire development from having to comply with detention/retention pond flood mitigation because the city claims the entire site was concrete. But, the developer's own arial photography shows large portions of the property that permeable surfaces and no concrete at all. Preferential treatment? No, shut up because you are a hypocrite. Walmart claims that it will "collect" $780,000 in sales taxes, but won't tell us whether that number reflects any growth in sales taxes or is just $780,000 in taxes that Walmart diverted from other businesses. But we can't talk about whether it is right for a massive corporation to mislead the public and city officials because we are elitists. The developer wants to get all their permits and start construction by December. But it is not clear whether TxDOT has approved the connection of Bass Ct to the new frontage road. Is the developer just making assumptions in representations to City Council about traffic impact without knowing whether Yale will be the only north/south access? Or do we just have to shut up and let the developer do whatever they want because we will be forcing a few people to drive an extra 2-4 miles to get to a Walmart in a city where people drive 30 miles to get to work without even thinking thet they have a long commute. If you want to let developers and multinational corporations walk all over the city and its residents, that is fine. But to dismiss all of the opposition on the grounds that it must just be a pretext for elitism is nothing more than an admission that the opponents are right and you have no choice but to demean them because you have no good argument for giving the developers and Walmart a free pass on everything they do.

1. Dense compared to the suburbs. The area has plenty of apartments and townhomes and is not just 6600 sq ft single family homes. Walmart supercenters are designed to exist in the suburbs on cheap land far away from where people live. 2. It is not about car trips, it is about getting what you need in your neighborhood. Smaller and more plentiful stores rather than having people from all over pile into a Supercenter. If you think Supercenters are better suited for urban areas than walkable store fronts, you need to stay out in the burbs and leave us alone. 3. Maybe in the burbs, but not in the City. The developer of Sawyer Heights promised lots of nice restaurants, boutiques and so on. The result, the same crap that is in every strip center and a freebirds. No "chef driven" restaurant will open in a strip center with Wal-Mart. Not even in the burbs. 4. I complained about Walmart putting in too many stores before they announced the super concept urban store for Yale. And the duplication argument is still valid to refute all those who claim that the Heights "needs" a Walmart supercenter. You can have it both ways because it is two completely different points. 5. Stupid of you to think that people are powerless in a democracy. Councilman Gonzalez has publicly announced that he does not support the development and has tagged the Koehler street variance. Other council members are very close to announcing their opposition. No 380 agreement=no Walmart. No permits=no Walmart. My arguments are my own and not the arguments that will be presented to decision makers. Those arguments have so far been very effective. It is no coincidence that no one on city council has publicly announced their support for Walmart.

That walmart is on a 5-7 lane road in the middle of a heavy commercial area. That part of Honolulu may be dense, but there is no comparison in terms of population: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html#axzz0xYj7CVh1 The proposed Heights Walmart is on a 4 lane road, barely 1/10th of a mile from a frontage road, less than a mile from a school crossing in the Heights, directly abutting a residential neighborhood and less than a half mile from the beginning of the residential areas of the Heights. If you think putting a Walmart on Honolulu's version of Westheimer is the same as putting it on Yale, then why not put a Walmart on W. 19th.

You are right. We do not live in a small down. We live in a very dense urban environment. The supercenter concept was designed to be put on the outskirts of town where land is very cheap and there was minimal demands on roadways. The idea was to draw people away from the local shopping district so they would do all their shopping at the supercenter in one stop. Walmart replicated this model in larger cities by building on the outskirts of suburban areas. After anemic sales growth last year (1%), Walmart has realized that this business model has jumped the shark. Now, Walmart wants to just take a supercenter and jam it right in the middle of densely populated urban areas. This the exact opposite of the model for smart and sustainable urban development (smaller retail centers in walkable neighborhoods to diminish traffic congestion). The average Walmart generates an average of 10,000 car trips a day. That number is based on stores that are in suburban areas. Walmart is marketing the Yale location as some super duper new concept store that will serve the entire city. Thus, the Yale location will generate significantly more traffic than an average store because it is in a densely populated urban area and is being marketed as a special flagship urban store. Add to that the increased traffic burden created by a new east bound feeder road an Yale St. exit (this will be a preferred alternate for downtown commuters as they can get on Memorial from Waugh without waiting for a traffic light and well before the I-10 45 traffic), and you are looking at possibly three times the current traffic volume on Yale, while adding two traffic lights. between I-10 and Washington. There will be gridlock as there is barely a tenth of a mile between the new light at I-10 and the new light at Koehler and similar gridlock between the proposed extension of Koehler to Heights Blvd. Walmart will have an affect on small businesses. It always does. It won't be quite the same dynamic as what happens in small towns. What will happen is that the traffic burden will change the face of development. Big national chains (everything from Quiznos to check cashers to mobile phones to Best Buy) will want to build in the area as the traffic count goes up. Restaurants and bars will not. Small businesses will have trouble because they will see their rents rise as national chains move in to the area. Finally, if Walmart must have a store inside the loop, there are plenty of locations that would be beneficial for both Walmart and the immediate area. There are brownfields galore out around Old Katy Rd, Hemstead Rd, and W 11. A Walmart out there would help revitalized an area that is being abandonned by industry and is seeing a lot of new residential construction. There are opportunities on S. Main for a Walmart that would actually serve an underserved southside market. East of Downtown, there are plenty of lots on Navigation that could be remediated to become a Walmart that would serve a truly underserve eastside market. But, instead of going where Walmart is actually wanted and needed, Walmart is going to go right into an area that is already full of traffic and bring in people from underserved areas miles away to ruin a resurgent area with traffic, crime and piles of the same old coat tail retail development that follows Walmart everywhere. You just cannot cram a supercenter concept into a neighborhood that was originally desinged for trolleys and model Ts. Supercenters are suburban stores and are not compatible with urban life.

What, do you think it closed because it was making too much money?

And they are building supercenters at I-10 and Silber and I-45 at Crosstimbers. But, this is Walmart's own rhetoric. They are polling all over the city. They are sending mailers all over the city. Their own mailers and website claim that this is going to be some sort of super special concept for the whole city. It is one thing to put in a supercenter in the middle of a densely populated urban area that has no interest in a Walmart, it is another thing to market the supercenter as being some super special concept to get everyone in the City interested in shopping there.

That is odd because the price per sq ft for bungalows in Norhill was pretty much on par with the Heights when I was looking to buy. Norhill has never been the Heights. Norhill is closer to the highway (45), is bordered by crudy Main St. and does not have the same amenities. The housing stock is all small bungalows. There are no larger historic Victorians, Queen Anne, etc. like in the Heights. And lot size is almost uniformly 5000 sq ft. Heights is 6600 and up. Heights has 11th st, 19th st, jogging trail, parks, playgrounds etc. Norhill has a small park and the esplanade. Norhill has actually done quite well considering its disadvantages compared to the Heights.

You forgot the Kroger on 11th and Shepherd, the Fiesta just up the road on Shepher and the Kroger on 20th. There used to be a HEB pantry market on 11th and Yale. It closed because the neighborhood gentrified and no longer supported a discount grocer. Walmart talks a lot of talk about a grocery store. But they do the supercenter walk instead. If Walmart just wanted to do one of their neighborhood grocery stores, there would be little to complain about. But, Walmart is not just going for a supercenter (200,000 sq ft as reported by Ch. 2), they are going to build some superduper urban supercenter that is supposed to serve the ENTIRE CITY. Just take a look at their propagana mailer and website. That means all bets are off as far as traffic goes.

The market for bungalows is robust. I bought during the market crash. Prices came back a bit from the highs in 2007-08, but competition for bungalows was still fierce, even without builders in the mix. (Don't crow about builders being scared away by the historic ordinance. Builders couldn't get loans when I was looking.). I paid list price. Move-in ready bungalows in the 280-320 range are now being bid up by buyers, even with the threat of the coming of Stalinist historic preservation ordinance revisions.

I think the point is that the developers are nuts if they think they are going to get "local boutiques and chef driven restaurants" in a strip mall anchored by Walmart. Just imagine the phone call: Developer: Hi, Monica Pope? How are you? I heard you might be interested in opening another restaurant in the Heights area? MP: Sure, what is the development like? Who is the anchor? Developer: Oh the development will be very nice. Landscaping, green buildings, etc. MP: So there isn't an anchor? Developer: No, there is. It's Walmart. But it is a new urban concept with lots of browns! MP: (click) This whole "boutique/chef driven restaurant" talk is nothing more than PR to try to fool people into thinking that this development will be a benefit for the Heights. This development will fill up with the usual junk that follows Walmart around.

Nice try. You changed the language of 33-227. Here is what it actually says: Amendment of any designation of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archaeological site and any change in the boundaries of any historic district or archaeological site . . . . (emphasis added) Not even the opponents of the revisions have tried to make this argument because it is plainly false. The section of the ordinance you cite only has to do with amendments to the designation of a historic district (etc.) or changes in the boundaries. This section simply refers to changes to the designation of a district and not changes to the ordinance that governs the district. The funny thing is that this section of the ordinance prohibits Sue Lovell's "re-polling" of districts. Historic districts are either historic districts or they are not. If a historic district does not want to be a historic district, they must follow the process set forth in 33-222 et seq. There is no ordinance giving the City the power to "re-poll" districts. The City does not have the power to do so. Nothing in the revised ordinance gives the City that power. The City can't do it. It is just that simple. I went to the meeting last night. It is interesting what happens when people actually have to stand up and speak to the decision makers and community. The opposition has been howling about how they didn't get to speak at the public meetings. But, when they got their chance, they didn't have much to say. People blame the ordinance for scaring off builders, but haven't we hit a bit of a rough patch in the economy recently? And the ordinance did nothing to scare off the builders at Rutland and 15th. And the guy who called out the owners of new construction was not tactful, but made a valid point. What decade will it be when they need to do anything that will require HAHC approval, if ever? Sure, I understand the point about rebuilding after a fire. But, why not just urge revision to that section. Why knock down all the other bungalows when you already got to do it? And that is really the tragedy of the whole thing. There are plenty of areas for compromise and plenty of problems with HAHC that should be addressed. But, the realtor lead opposition decided to make this a kill the historic districts campaign without any room for middle ground. I talked to some of the "yes" people last night and have talked to a bunch of neighbors. From my neighbors, I am hearing that they have become disenchanted with the blue sign campaign because it is so clearly over the top with their arguments about house paint and AC placement. Many were handed blue signs to put in their yard and, upon further investigation, have removed the sings. I also met some very interesting people from the "yes" campaign that have done extraordinary things to preserve their historic homes. What this boils down to is that the Heights is the Heights because people have made major investments in preserving and maintaining historic homes. This is what separates the Heights from the rest of the City. Builders have capitalized on the work of preservationists. If the Heights was full of 1970s ranches, no one would pay 700-900k for a 3500 sq ft faux victorian on a 6600 sq ft lot. We are now at a turning point where the new builds are threatening the very people who made the neighborhood desirable. But people in historic homes have no way to recover the cost externalities of the new builds. Thus, it is certainly within the power of the City to address this market inefficieny and to reward those who invested so much to preserve the historic character of the Heights. This is really the last stand for the historic buildings in the Heights. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

Or is it because Wal-Mart has more shoplifters to catch? Of course, you don't know that and are basing your assumptions on "citywide" statistics. You are a liar. The crime I was talking about was the crime against the community, not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart considers its security to be solely dedicated only to protecting property: http://www.click2houston.com/news/22806207/detail.html And the point is that regardless of where the crime occurs, Wal-Mart will be making lots of police calls to a department that is under a hiring freeze and in a community that has to hire constables to patrol the neighborhoods.

Quite to the contrary, the 90 day waiver was extremely unpopular when it was included in the ordinance. The 90 day waiver was included as a concession based on representations of builders and investors that the waiver period would be used constructively and not just be an additional cost of doing business in the Heights. If there was a bait and switch, this was it. Once the ordinance went into place, the builders just factored in the 90 day waiver and went on about as their business as they had always done. Deed restrictions do not work when a block has been busted. If there is an existing house on the block that does not conform to the restrictions, you can't have them. Most every block in the Heights has at least one or two houses that are outside the kind of restrictions that would preserve the block. The deed restrictions worked great in Norhill because practically every house was a single story bungalow with the original setback. There are too many new construction outliers in the Heights to make that work. As for the takings, you have to show that your reasonable investment backed expectations have been harmed. Under Penn Central, the USC held that there was no taking even though Penn Central could not build a giant skyscraper over the top of the building. In the Heights, anyone who owns property will still be able to make a profit on their investment by renovating, adding on or demolishing and building a compatible new structure. The government is not required to pay property owners if historic preservation laws keep them from realizing the maximum return on their investment. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are protected, not the entire investment backed expectation.

Crime at Wal-Mart is in large part committed in the parking lot. Now that everyone drives SUVs, it is very easy to pull a weapon on someone as they go to get in their vehicle. If you have two SUVs parked side by side, the crime will not be seen unless someone is in very close vicinity. Add to that the fact that Wal-Mart parking lots are massive, the fact that lower income people tend to not have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash, and the fact that most Wal-Marts are sited by major highways for easy getaway, and you have a great place to commit a crime. If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

This is Wal-Mart's prepackaged PR campaign that they launch when they face resistance. Take a look at www.walmartbaltimore.com and www.Walmartchicago.com. They do not even bother to change the template for their pro-walmart website. In Chicago, "protestors" were paid $100 to come out and demonstrate on behalf of a proposed Wal-Mart: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/walmart-pullman-paid-demonstrators/Content?oid=2099358. While they are entitled to their PR campaign, it is just so disingenuous to talk about the area needing a grocery store while planning to cram a 200k sq ft superstore (according to Ch. 2 last night) into the area.