Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[JJxvi]

Out of curiosity, do you imagine music playing in the background while you read your own posts?

[Marksmu]

You did not tell people how to communicate with RUDH. RUDH has a website, facebook page, email address and even have public meetings. If people want to communicate with RUDH, there are ample opportunities. What you did was tell people how to contact certain individuals who have been active with RUDH in one way or another at their personal residences. If you had a problem with Mayor Parker, would it be appropriate to go to her house? Has anyone who is against RUDH gone to Ainbinder's house? In a neighborhood that has had a recent wave of break in robberies, do you really think that it is appropriate for people to be knocking on doors of private residences to discuss whether someone's selection of a home to live makes them a hypocrite? What you are really trying to do is harrass and intimidate people who you do not agree with by putting their personal information on the internet.

And there is no anonymity for the people that are involved with RUDH. They get quoted individually in the news all the time and have even been on camera. But that does not mean that they are fair game to have their personal information posted and have their personal lives attacked. That is just dirty pool and internet trolling. And you know it.

And my point about "how would you know" was simply pointing out the obvious irony (or cowardice) of making childish criticisms about people's personal lives from behind the anonymity of an internet avatar. You will never personally know whether people who support RUDH would do the same to you because you will always be hiding behind your computer. Whether they are hypocrites or on the side of all things good and true, the people whose personal information you have published at least have the guts (admittedly more than I probably will ever have) to start an organization to take on very, very powerful interests in our community. You can rail all day on the internet about why you think a Walmart is just what West End residents need to boost their property values and how the Heights will be so much better with a Walmart nearby. But, going after people personally while hiding behind an internet avatar is totally out of line. Of course, you are not dumb and have obviously done this so you can make yourself the center of this discussion as it is clear that not much of substance was being said about the lawsuit. So, at least you have succeeded on that front.

A facebook page is not a legitimate form of contact information for any real communication of any kind. Going to their website shows a singe phone number and an email address that is of course anonymous. It looks to me like RUDH leaders are afraid to put their real names behind anything.

NICHE did nothing more than access public records and make them easier for others to see in order to point out the glaring hypocrisy that is RUDH. He invaded no privacy by doing so, and he made no threats against them. However, I'm willing to bet he would not have gone to any of that trouble if the names of the people responsible for RUDH were listed on the website like virtually every single legitimate entity in existence.

RUDH "leaders" are hiding behind the computer and a lawyer just like you claim NICHE is. If they were not then their names would be posted on the organizations website instead of everything being anonymous.

[TheNiche]

s3mk,

Their website only lists generic contact information and no information about the leadership, much less any public or members-only meetings. In my mind, that's anonymity. It also did not link to the stopheightswalmart.com page, which they apparently sponsor but copyright under a different name; and even there, you have to dig deep to find out anything about the people that organize it.

I also had stumbled upon the names of these individuals in various news articles while Googling around, however the individuals did not publicly disclose any affiliation with RUDH. (In retrospect, I should've tried "Nick" instead of "Nicholas" where my research of Mr. Urbano is concerned. That would've turned something up.)

Unlike RUDH, I have not incorporated an entity that claims to represent the interests of any individual, group, or vaguely-defined geographic area. I do not solicit donations from the general public for whom I promote a preservationist aesthetic without personally adhering to any of the principles that I espouse. I have not filed suit against a government entity. I do hold RUDH and its organizers to a different standard than any random HAIFer. Their transparency (or lack thereof) is fair game, at least as far as I am concerned. You are welcome to agree or disagree with me.

Edited November 9, 2011 by TheNiche

[s3mh]

s3mk,

Their website only lists generic contact information and no information about the leadership, much less any public or members-only meetings. In my mind, that's anonymity. It also did not link to the stopheightswalmart.com page, which they apparently sponsor but copyright under a different name; and even there, you have to dig deep to find out anything about the people that organize it.

I also had stumbled upon the names of these individuals in various news articles while Googling around, however the individuals did not publicly disclose any affiliation with RUDH. (In retrospect, I should've tried "Nick" instead of "Nicholas" where my research of Mr. Urbano is concerned. That would've turned something up.)

Unlike RUDH, I have not incorporated an entity that claims to represent the interests of any individual, group, or vaguely-defined geographic area. I do not solicit donations from the general public for whom I promote a preservationist aesthetic without personally adhering to any of the principles that I espouse. I have not filed suit against a government entity. I do hold RUDH and its organizers to a different standard than any random HAIFer. Their transparency (or lack thereof) is fair game, at least as far as I am concerned. You are welcome to agree or disagree with me.

Sorry, but you are simply constructing a reality that is not there. The RUDH website has a phone number, PO box and email addresses. It does link to the stopheightswalmart.org page under the initiatives page. The stopheightswalmart.org page and the facebook page post notices for public meetings. I also found a list of directors on the stopheightswalmart.org page on the organization's letterhead. It looks like they post a lot of their communications with the City. If you are trying to be anonymous, you usually do not put your name on an organization's letterhead and open your meetings to the public. It took me about 3 minutes to find all of that. Far less time than you spent digging up personal information and gazing on googlemaps street view at people's houses. The fact of the matter is that the only one who is clinging to anonymity is you so you can make a cowardly personal attack on people you do not even know.

And your argument about the houses is just plain stupid. Where in that mission statement does it say anything about historic preservation? You have just foisted that concept on the organization in order to justify your personal attacks. I have never heard, a bit to my disappointment, anything from RUDH about historic preservation. Many people have argued that it is not necessary to preserve historic homes to preserve the character of the Heights. I disagree strongly with that. But maybe that is RUDHs veiw. Or maybe they have not taken a position on the matter. The fact of the matter is that beyond your personal interpretation of a single sentence, you cannot point to anything from the organization about historic preservation. Most everything I see has to do with sustainable, neighborhood friendly urban development. Nothing about the historic ordinance or historic preservation. Thus, your personal attacks are unjustifiable, unless you recreate the world to fit your version of reality.

[VicMan]

The phone number and PO box are not enough. It is important to know the real names of the leadership, and the address of the organization's offices. Since it does not have an office, it defaults to the residences of the leadership.

Sorry, but you are simply constructing a reality that is not there. The RUDH website has a phone number, PO box and email addresses. It does link to the stopheightswalmart.org page under the initiatives page. The stopheightswalmart.org page and the facebook page post notices for public meetings. I also found a list of directors on the stopheightswalmart.org page on the organization's letterhead. It looks like they post a lot of their communications with the City. If you are trying to be anonymous, you usually do not put your name on an organization's letterhead and open your meetings to the public. It took me about 3 minutes to find all of that. Far less time than you spent digging up personal information and gazing on googlemaps street view at people's houses. The fact of the matter is that the only one who is clinging to anonymity is you so you can make a cowardly personal attack on people you do not even know.

And your argument about the houses is just plain stupid. Where in that mission statement does it say anything about historic preservation? You have just foisted that concept on the organization in order to justify your personal attacks. I have never heard, a bit to my disappointment, anything from RUDH about historic preservation. Many people have argued that it is not necessary to preserve historic homes to preserve the character of the Heights. I disagree strongly with that. But maybe that is RUDHs veiw. Or maybe they have not taken a position on the matter. The fact of the matter is that beyond your personal interpretation of a single sentence, you cannot point to anything from the organization about historic preservation. Most everything I see has to do with sustainable, neighborhood friendly urban development. Nothing about the historic ordinance or historic preservation. Thus, your personal attacks are unjustifiable, unless you recreate the world to fit your version of reality.

[Marksmu]

The phone number and PO box are not enough. It is important to know the real names of the leadership, and the address of the organization's offices. Since it does not have an office, it defaults to the residences of the leadership.

I agree - a PO box, an email address, and a phone number do not make a group legitimate...Without the names of the leadership people SHOULD dig into who is running it prior to donating to it, or joining it...it looks like a site built by a HS student for a school project...You, S3MH are the one offended by something that is not offensive.

I scoured that site and did not find a single name other than Ed, or something like that. That is insufficient. They hide behind an organization, and apparently they are so afraid of being known to the public that they make threats and try to force the admin of this site to take their info down...stinks to me!

[TheNiche]

And your argument about the houses is just plain stupid. Where in that mission statement does it say anything about historic preservation? You have just foisted that concept on the organization in order to justify your personal attacks. I have never heard, a bit to my disappointment, anything from RUDH about historic preservation. Many people have argued that it is not necessary to preserve historic homes to preserve the character of the Heights. I disagree strongly with that. But maybe that is RUDHs veiw. Or maybe they have not taken a position on the matter. The fact of the matter is that beyond your personal interpretation of a single sentence, you cannot point to anything from the organization about historic preservation. Most everything I see has to do with sustainable, neighborhood friendly urban development. Nothing about the historic ordinance or historic preservation. Thus, your personal attacks are unjustifiable, unless you recreate the world to fit your version of reality.

RUDH's Certificate of Formation describes its purposes as follows. They also cite it almost verbatim in the first sections of most of the documents that they author.

"This organization is 501c4 community association devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Huoston [sic] Heights and West End neighborhoods by representing the community before local government and educating the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community."

Hmmm...that whole bit about "preserving" makes me think that they might like to preserve or avoid changing something.

Sustainability is all about densification, infill, brownfield redevelopment, and using the latest technologies and construction practices to conserve water and energy, and to reduce waste. RUDH does not seem to actively advocate sustainability, nor do they mention it as a goal.

I also found a list of directors on the stopheightswalmart.org page on the organization's letterhead. It looks like they post a lot of their communications with the City.

Most organizations make this kind of thing clearly apparent on their website, and to that end their website could use some improvement. That is my opinion, take it or leave it. But I will graciously concede the point that most of the names are there for someone that digs into the RUDH propaganda.

And to that end, thank you for pointing me toward a letter with the names of more officers of RUDH. Something I didn't expect was that the attorney that RUDH used to threaten HAIF is actually indicated as the President of the organization. It's odd that he introduced himself as an attorney rather than as an officer of the organization. Not exactly forthcoming... If he had bothered to express reasonable concerns to me directly by PM, man-to-man, then I would not have been so motivated to research and ultimately expose his officers as hypocrites. We would not be having this conversation. If the officers of RUDH are pissed about what I have to say about them, then I hope that they are also pissed at him. He appears to lack the basic social skills to deal with minor instigators like myself. He is an ineffective leader.

Robert B. Task, President

417 E. 25th St., Houston, TX

It's another townhome! Built in 2001, this structure is out of scale with the endangered single-story originals of Sunset Heights. He purchased the ticky tacky townhome in 2009, having moved into Sunset Heights from the awesomeness that is...Atascocita. He had lived there in a new-ish home for seven years. The house is located 400 feet from a Target store. Although Mr. Task lives much closer to the Northline Wal-Mart than to the proposed Washington Heights Wal-Mart, and although he moved into the neighborhood in time, I do not recall anybody in Sunset Heights raising a ruckus when Northline got redeveloped.

Colton Candler, Director

1158 Bonner St., Houston, TX

If anybody has a right to be all pissy about Wal-Mart, it's this guy. His garrish new townhome, built in 2005, overlooks the contaminated brownfield where Wal-Mart will be sited. It also overlooks...railroad tracks. The tracks are about 25 feet off his back wall. Imagine, someone that can put up with this for a neighbor...and he's whining about the new grocery store going in next door!

Jeffery C. Jackson, Director

[not a property owner]

I don't mind outing this guy's law firm since he is apparently proud of his affiliation with RUDH. There you go Jeff, some free advertising. If I'm not mistaken, this is the baby lawyer that RedScare likes to make fun of. I'll leave it to him.

In summary, I have identified seven members of RUDH. They live in four new townhomes, two new-ish houses, and one apparently is not yet financially vested in the community. Not a single person lives a lifestyle that is consistent with the stated goals of RUDH...but they'll take your donations! Oh hells yeah, they will!

Edited November 10, 2011 by TheNiche

[VicMan]

It's good that TheNiche is putting the info in text, because now the info is searchable on Google. So somebody will be able to find out who the president of the organization is

In case the organization takes it down, here's a saved copy at http://www.webcitation.org/635B4Lfhg

[RedScare]

Out of curiosity, do you imagine music playing in the background while you read your own posts?

This post has not gotten nearly the applause that it deserves.

[RedScare]

And my point about "how would you know" was simply pointing out the obvious irony (or cowardice) of making childish criticisms about people's personal lives from behind the anonymity of an internet avatar.

Using the word 'irony' in an ironic post deserves some sort of an award. Here's a trophy.

[VicMan]

Just to be thorough, the letter has the organization's phone number, 832-356-7834

I am going to use http://www.numberingplans.com/?page=analysis⊂=phonenr to trace it

I'm not sure if this gives additional insight, but anyway here are attributes of the organization's phone number

"

Information on phone number range +1 832356XXXX

Number billable as geographic number Country or destination United States City or exchange location Houston, TX Original network provider* Bandwidth.com Clec, Llc - Tx

*) Number portability has not been taken into account"

[20thStDad]

This thread has risen from the dead to become my favorite again.

[J008]

Just to be thorough, the letter has the organization's phone number, 832-356-7834

I am going to use http://www.numbering...sis⊂=phonenr to trace it

I'm not sure if this gives additional insight, but anyway here are attributes of the organization's phone number

"

Information on phone number range +1 832356XXXX

Number billable as geographic number Country or destination United States City or exchange location Houston, TX Original network provider* Bandwidth.com Clec, Llc - Tx

*) Number portability has not been taken into account"

This is just more and more creepy. Why don't you try calling it!

I run into RUDH people all the time. They regularly hang out \ shop\ walk\ eat\ drink in the heights and as it has been so un-elegantly pointed out they live there.

If you are curious who they are, look for the sign in the yard, the bumper sticker on their car, and the businesses listed on their website.

When I had read that a good chunk of River oaks asked google streetview to be excluded, I thought it was pretty snooty, but now I can appreciate how your info so quickly goes to the lowest common denominator and then attached to a 59 pages of discussion about you.

I don't know what the internet etiquette is on this kind of thing, but it just really strikes a dissonant chord to take it so personally. Especially from people so capable of making their points with other methods.

[Marksmu]

This is just more and more creepy. Why don't you try calling it!

I run into RUDH people all the time. They regularly hang out \ shop\ walk\ eat\ drink in the heights and as it has been so un-elegantly pointed out they live there.

If you are curious who they are, look for the sign in the yard, the bumper sticker on their car, and the businesses listed on their website.

When I had read that a good chunk of River oaks asked google streetview to be excluded, I thought it was pretty snooty, but now I can appreciate how your info so quickly goes to the lowest common denominator and then attached to a 59 pages of discussion about you.

I don't know what the internet etiquette is on this kind of thing, but it just really strikes a dissonant chord to take it so personally. Especially from people so capable of making their points with other methods.

Any legitimate organization has all of the information necessary to the public easily accessible to prove its legitimacy....what we have here is an organization who claims to be raising money to stop a Walmart and actively soliciting donations without any member accountability.

For all we know the young attorney who is also the president could be pocketing all of the donations in exchange for his "fee" I think people would want to know that - but how donations are used is not spelled out.

Is RUDH paying its members for their service? That is a question that should be answered....RUDH could really just be a giant scam by a young attorney to get paid to do something he was going to do for free out of principal alone.....Since their site is terrible, and they hide all their information from the public - the type of information being distributed is all that non-members can use to gauge the legitimacy of the organization...suffice it to say that the organization is currently looking very illegitimate.

[mcook2002]

The internet is the most bad ass place on earth!

[s3mh]

RUDH's Certificate of Formation describes its purposes as follows. They also cite it almost verbatim in the first sections of most of the documents that they author.

"This organization is 501c4 community association devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Huoston [sic] Heights and West End neighborhoods by representing the community before local government and educating the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community."

Hmmm...that whole bit about "preserving" makes me think that they might like to preserve or avoid changing something.

Sustainability is all about densification, infill, brownfield redevelopment, and using the latest technologies and construction practices to conserve water and energy, and to reduce waste. RUDH does not seem to actively advocate sustainability, nor do they mention it as a goal.

In summary, I have identified seven members of RUDH. They live in four new townhomes, two new-ish houses, and one apparently is not yet financially vested in the community. Not a single person lives a lifestyle that is consistent with the stated goals of RUDH...but they'll take your donations! Oh hells yeah, they will!

Fail. Utter fail. Other than your interpretation of the vague, boilerplate language on the mission statement (I am fairly certain it is just a modification of language from the IRS code as I have seen very similar language for other organizations), show me one single statement from RUDH stating that the organization has taken a position regarding historic preservation os single family homes in the Heights and the West End. In fact, lets make it interesting. If you do, I promise I will never post on this message board again. You all will be able to go on railing against the rabble who dare to stand up against the perfect humans who develop real estate and know far better what is best for the community than the ignorant slobs that live in the community without the threat of having to get anything other than the loving responses of your sycophants at HAIF.

I will tell you that if you try, you won't find anything. I had hoped that RUDH would get behind historic preservation and watched carefully to see if they would. To my disappointment, they never took a position one way or the other. Instead, the focus has been the Walmart site and the use of 380 agreements. But, if you prove me wrong, I will stand by my bet and be done with HAIF forever. And it is a unilateral bet. You have nothing to lose. If you cannot produce anything beyond your personal interpretation of the broad language of the mission statement, then you owe me nothing.

And your anonymity justification is really just a website design criticism. Are you really saying that an organization that does not have a tab on its website that lists the board of directors entitles people to post the directors personal information on the internet? Well, take a look at this: http://www.hpra.org/. The Houston Property Rights Association. Probably the ying to RUDH's yang. See any contact information on their website? See any information about their directors? They are a non-profit organization. They avoid paying taxes on their income and rely on donations to fund their organization. Are you going to look up their directors' and officers' home addresses to see whether they are property owners or not? It would be hypocritical to be a director of that organization and not actually be a property owner. Shouldn't people be able to go to these people's home address, knock on their door and tell them that they are hypocrites? Obviously, the answer is NO!!! No decent and civil person would ever suggest any kind of harassment like that. It is fair game to attack the organization and express your opinions about what the organization is doing. But, to put personal information on the internet based on a falacious ad hominem attack is really nothing more that an admission that you have no good argument on the merits and must resort to swift boat-esque personal attacks on individuals in order to support your notion that developers know what is best for our communities and the people who actually live in the communities should just shut up and bow down before the great developer. All you have shown is that you are a master internet troll who has turned a lively and contentious debate about a major development in the Heights into a debate about you.

[TheNiche]

I don't know what the internet etiquette is on this kind of thing, but it just really strikes a dissonant chord to take it so personally. Especially from people so capable of making their points with other methods.

RUDH is not merely a social club that meets up at neighborhood cafes and bars. They are incorporated. They are allowed to take money from the general public and use it at their discretion; and with great power comes great responsibility. However, they advance a cause contrary to the lifestyle preferences of their leadership. They are frivilously suing my local government. They threatened legal action to try to censor me.

RUDH needs to get their act together. If their feelings are hurt, it is only sympomatic of their failure to adequately "represent the community before local government and educate the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community".

[JJxvi]

Its all for the greater good and a Wal*Mart free world.

[Marksmu]

And your anonymity justification is really just a website design criticism. Are you really saying that an organization that does not have a tab on its website that lists the board of directors entitles people to post the directors personal information on the internet? Well, take a look at this: http://www.hpra.org/. The Houston Property Rights Association. Probably the ying to RUDH's yang.

I have never heard of HPRA but their web site looks abandoned. There is no chance in the world I would ever give any money to an organization like that. The RUDH site does not look abandoned....more to the point the RUDH site is hiding what is most likely occurring from the public's eyes; that is the president of the organization is taking donations from unsuspecting citizens and using it to pay himself to file frivolous lawsuits against the city.

I feel sorry for the people donating...there should be a huge disclaimer on the donation page....the president of this "organization" is paying himself from your donations. If not for NICHE's diligent work we would not have known this.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Marksmu

[JJxvi]

Greater good!

[J008]

However, they advance a cause contrary to the lifestyle preferences of their leadership.

Based primarily on the TX SOS site and google maps?

I'd like to think my lifestyle is more interesting than one can deduce from those two sites.

[TheNiche]

Fail. Utter fail. Other than your interpretation of the vague, boilerplate language on the mission statement (I am fairly certain it is just a modification of language from the IRS code as I have seen very similar language for other organizations), show me one single statement from RUDH stating that the organization has taken a position regarding historic preservation os single family homes in the Heights and the West End. In fact, lets make it interesting. If you do, I promise I will never post on this message board again. You all will be able to go on railing against the rabble who dare to stand up against the perfect humans who develop real estate and know far better what is best for the community than the ignorant slobs that live in the community without the threat of having to get anything other than the loving responses of your sycophants at HAIF.

I will tell you that if you try, you won't find anything. I had hoped that RUDH would get behind historic preservation and watched carefully to see if they would. To my disappointment, they never took a position one way or the other. Instead, the focus has been the Walmart site and the use of 380 agreements. But, if you prove me wrong, I will stand by my bet and be done with HAIF forever. And it is a unilateral bet. You have nothing to lose. If you cannot produce anything beyond your personal interpretation of the broad language of the mission statement, then you owe me nothing.

What is written in the incorporating documents is important for a reason! It provides for a limitation of the purposes to which the donors can expect that their money will be put to use. It is the basis for an implicit trust between the organization and its donors. If that verbiage is meaningless or is so broadly construed as to become meaningless, then it is my opinion that RUDH effectively has no purpose and should not qualify for tax exempt status.

If they can't take this stuff seriously, then RUDH needs new leadership or should disolve.

And your anonymity justification is really just a website design criticism. Are you really saying that an organization that does not have a tab on its website that lists the board of directors entitles people to post the directors personal information on the internet? Well, take a look at this: http://www.hpra.org/. The Houston Property Rights Association. Probably the ying to RUDH's yang. See any contact information on their website? See any information about their directors? They are a non-profit organization. They avoid paying taxes on their income and rely on donations to fund their organization. Are you going to look up their directors' and officers' home addresses to see whether they are property owners or not? It would be hypocritical to be a director of that organization and not actually be a property owner. Shouldn't people be able to go to these people's home address, knock on their door and tell them that they are hypocrites? Obviously, the answer is NO!!! No decent and civil person would ever suggest any kind of harassment like that. It is fair game to attack the organization and express your opinions about what the organization is doing. But, to put personal information on the internet based on a falacious ad hominem attack is really nothing more that an admission that you have no good argument on the merits and must resort to swift boat-esque personal attacks on individuals in order to support your notion that developers know what is best for our communities and the people who actually live in the communities should just shut up and bow down before the great developer. All you have shown is that you are a master internet troll who has turned a lively and contentious debate about a major development in the Heights into a debate about you.

You are welcome to criticize HPRA. I don't have a dog in that fight. There are a number of mismanaged organizations; that fact by iteself should not excuse RUDH from being one of them.

[TheNiche]

Based primarily on the TX SOS site and google maps?

I'd like to think my lifestyle is more interesting than one can deduce from those two sites.

Mostly just HCAD and Google Streetview, actually.

A person's place of residence and the circumstances of their purchase reveal a great deal about their lifestyle preferences.

Considering that six out of six of the RUDH officers that are financially vested in the community have purchased new housing stock rather than make any effort to preserve the character, traditions, and appearance of the neighborhood--even though they clearly had the financial wherewithall to do so--I think that the evidence is valid and statistically significant.

You are welcome to disagree, and I'm sure that you will; but consider that every time you and s3mk reply to me, it validates the threat that I pose to RUDH's credibility. That is to say, if it were so obvious to everyone that I should not be taken seriously, then you wouldn't take me seriously either.

[J008]

Mostly just HCAD and Google Streetview, actually.

A person's place of residence and the circumstances of their purchase reveal a great deal about their lifestyle preferences.

Considering that six out of six of the RUDH officers that are financially vested in the community have purchased new housing stock rather than make any effort to preserve the character, traditions, and appearance of the neighborhood--even though they clearly had the financial wherewithall to do so--I think that the evidence is valid and statistically significant.

You are welcome to disagree, and I'm sure that you will; but consider that every time you and s3mk reply to me, it validates the threat that I pose to RUDH's credibility. That is to say, if it were so obvious to everyone that I should not be taken seriously, then you wouldn't take me seriously either.

Actually, you make quite a few good points in an intellectual and interesting way, though your conclusions are different than mine.

I only started chiming in again because I think the name and address and the satellite analysis of their homes is really creepy. I really don't think you are a threat to their cause but to some (me included) listing their addresses implies a threat of a different sort. Especially when your point could be just as easily made without it.

Obviously we disagree.

On another note:

You'd think since corps are people too, that it would be more appropriate to just picket RUDH's charter.

[samagon]

Actually, you make quite a few good points in an intellectual and interesting way, though your conclusions are different than mine.

I only started chiming in again because I think the name and address and the satellite analysis of their homes is really creepy. I really don't think you are a threat to their cause but to some (me included) listing their addresses implies a threat of a different sort. Especially when your point could be just as easily made without it.

Obviously we disagree.

On another note:

You'd think since corps are people too, that it would be more appropriate to just picket RUDH's charter.

what threat is implied by listing the addresses of the board members? the threat that people may see that the board members of RUDH ascribe to live by different standards than the charter by which the organization they founded?

Is it too late for them to change the charter to something more specific and analogous to the activities of RUDH? Perhaps it should read:

this is a community organization committed to fighting walmart from being built in or near the heights.

at least that would be an accurate description of their activities to date.

How's that?

Edited November 10, 2011 by samagon

[samagon]

example of a non-profit organization dedicated to the heights:

http://www.houstonheights.org/overview.htm

wowo!! a list of the board members???!!!!

http://www.houstonheights.org/board.htm

jeez, I bet they are going to contact Editor in an effort to have me censored!!!

[TheNiche]

I only started chiming in again because I think the name and address and the satellite analysis of their homes is really creepy. I really don't think you are a threat to their cause but to some (me included) listing their addresses implies a threat of a different sort. Especially when your point could be just as easily made without it.

Obviously we disagree.

It is my opinion that the officers' lifestyle preferences are in conflict with the intent of the organization that they lead. In order to credibly support that opinion as something more than speculation, I offer pertinent facts sourced from the public record. I stated earlier that I came across many other details about their personal lives, also a matter of public record. However I chose not to reveal them on HAIF because those are not pertinent facts that support my opinion.

The RUDH officers assumed the role of public figures by incorporating this entity and then suing my City. They have no expectation of privacy and they should not automatically expect politeness from every random individual on the internet (although they might've obtained it had they been forthright with me and asked nicely).

On another note:

You'd think since corps are people too, that it would be more appropriate to just picket RUDH's charter.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Corporations are legal entities with rights and responsibilities and that afford some protections to its members. I don't always agree with the law as written, interpreted, or practiced (particularly where non-profits are concerned), but the law is what it is. If I just bloviated on the basis of my own sense of morality and ethics, ignoring the effect of law and other real-world constraints, then my contribution to HAIF or the public discourse would be superficial. It'd be 'intellectual masturbation'...to coin a term.

Edited November 10, 2011 by TheNiche

[s3mh]

What is written in the incorporating documents is important for a reason! It provides for a limitation of the purposes to which the donors can expect that their money will be put to use. It is the basis for an implicit trust between the organization and its donors. If that verbiage is meaningless or is so broadly construed as to become meaningless, then it is my opinion that RUDH effectively has no purpose and should not qualify for tax exempt status.

If they can't take this stuff seriously, then RUDH needs new leadership or should disolve.

You are welcome to criticize HPRA. I don't have a dog in that fight. There are a number of mismanaged organizations; that fact by iteself should not excuse RUDH from being one of them.

You had your chance. I am still here and you are still wrong. The fact of the matter is that you concocted a strawman argument about RUDH in order to come up with an ad hominem attack when you had nothing of value to contribute about the merits of the lawsuit. Instead of discussing whether the largest corporation in the US and a wealthy developer are legally entitled to take 6 mil in tax dollars to pad their profit margin, you chose to make a cowardly attack on people you do not know and completely crossed the line by suggesting that people go to their homes and tell them they are hypocrites for buying new or recent construction. It is an Ann Coulter-esque argument. It is not meant to discuss the merits of the issues, but to kick sand in people's eyes and get people made at you for doing it. It is what sells Ann Coulter's books and is what cripples our democracy from functioning.

And the mission statement is broad in order to allow the organization to chart its own course without having to go back and have a special board meeting to amend the mission statement. RUDH has clearly charted a course and has pages and pages of statements about urban development on their website. You ignore all of it and chart a course for them based on your subjective interpretation of a broad mission statement in order to have your little Ann Coulter moment. But you have never had anything to say on the merits. You just call concerned citizens snobs and attack and try to intimidate people for having the guts to stand up against powerful interests based on a phony argument. It is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

[Ross]

WalMart isn't the biggest corporation in the US.

And, Ainbinder and WalMart aren't padding their profit margins with the $6 million from the 380 agreement, they have to pay that money out up front, and get reimbursed later. You can argue over whether the City should have to pay for the infrastructure (I say it does), but there's no $6 million gift to developers. And, really, we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was HEB or Whole Foods. RUDH only hates certain developments, not all of them, and that makes them hypocrites.

[TheNiche]

You had your chance. I am still here and you are still wrong. The fact of the matter is that you concocted a strawman argument about RUDH in order to come up with an ad hominem attack when you had nothing of value to contribute about the merits of the lawsuit. Instead of discussing whether the largest corporation in the US and a wealthy developer are legally entitled to take 6 mil in tax dollars to pad their profit margin, you chose to make a cowardly attack on people you do not know and completely crossed the line by suggesting that people go to their homes and tell them they are hypocrites for buying new or recent construction. It is an Ann Coulter-esque argument. It is not meant to discuss the merits of the issues, but to kick sand in people's eyes and get people made at you for doing it. It is what sells Ann Coulter's books and is what cripples our democracy from functioning.

And the mission statement is broad in order to allow the organization to chart its own course without having to go back and have a special board meeting to amend the mission statement. RUDH has clearly charted a course and has pages and pages of statements about urban development on their website. You ignore all of it and chart a course for them based on your subjective interpretation of a broad mission statement in order to have your little Ann Coulter moment. But you have never had anything to say on the merits. You just call concerned citizens snobs and attack and try to intimidate people for having the guts to stand up against powerful interests based on a phony argument. It is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

Wow. Isn't the person accusing someone of "an Ann Coulter moment" having "an Ann Coulter moment"? Pot, meet kettle. Maybe you could dial back the incendiary nature of your comments, just a tad, and we could focus on substance. Also, I think that you need to go back through the written record. You seem to have forgotten our earlier discussion of the merits of the case, and you also seem to be confusing the commentary of other posters with my own. ...that is, if I understand your criticisms correctly. Some of them aren't very specific.

Personally, I think that transparency is a remedy for sickly democracy. People should know who is involved in the political process, particularly when organizations and their officers are authorized by the IRS to take tax-free donations in order to finance, as you see it, a limitless purpose. I happen to disagree with you on that, but intelligent people can choose for themselves.