Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[JJxvi]

In other words, even if there was a pedestrian bridge built between the two Heights bridges to continue a path along the median, a pedestrian would be expected to cross to the sidewalks at the I-10 feeder roads regardless. Our lighted intersections are(apparently) not designed to handle pedestrian traffic crossing in the median safely (although most do anyway).

Edited March 27, 2012 by JJxvi

[JJxvi]

Note the position of the crosswalks at Heights and 6th.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.781487,-95.397578&spn=0.001393,0.001206&hnear=Houston,+Texas+77008&t=h&z=20

[s3mh]

The new trail on Heights Blvd south of I-10 is just a failed attempt to try to get the community to believe that they are getting something out of the 6 mil of public funds being used to pay for infrastructure improvements mainly for the benefit of the richest corporation in the world. The new trail segment is a joke. No one going for a run or walking on Heights Blvd is going to risk life and limb trying to cross the feeder to get another .3 mile on the new trail segment. The new trail segment was really intended to try to make the new strip malls look more desireable to potential lessees back when they fantasized about chef driven restaurants and boutiques sharing a development with a Walmart Supercenter.

[TheNiche]

If it were a lineup of Ross, Marshall's, and CitiTrends apparel instead of a Wal-Mart, the 380 Agreement with the developer would still have been a worthwhile deal. It didn't matter who the tenants were. The infrastructure would still have been wanted by the developer and the City (even if the City couldn't have been able to fund the improvements as quickly as they would've liked). There would also still be a marginal increase in the traffic count and congestion. The Yale Street bridge would still be unsafe, although nobody would've cared to call it out as such. RUDH and its constituency of high and mighty morally-superior Heights residents would've still whined at the prospect that an area near their neighborhood that isn't their neighborhood would be subject to an influx of townies.

The fact is, this thread is not about Wal-Mart. It's about self-important people that think that the world revolves around them.

[Leonard]

TheNiche - specifically what infrastructure are you talking about? The vast majority (90%) of the infrastructure is REQUIRED to build the development. The only reason they are repaving roads is because they HAVE to - they are digging up the roads to connect the development to the City water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. Once you dig up the road, you are obligated to repair it. The Traffic Impact Analysis requires the Koehler Street extension and the traffic light at Yale and Koehler.

There are a few items thrown in that aren't required - the esplanande work, some park work and cosmetic work on the bridges. The cosmetic work on the Yale Street Bridge is extremely suspect from a financial point of view in light of the ratings for that bridge.

[RedScare]

TheNiche - specifically what infrastructure are you talking about? The vast majority (90%) of the infrastructure is REQUIRED to build the development. The only reason they are repaving roads is because they HAVE to - they are digging up the roads to connect the development to the City water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. Once you dig up the road, you are obligated to repair it. The Traffic Impact Analysis requires the Koehler Street extension and the traffic light at Yale and Koehler.

There are a few items thrown in that aren't required - the esplanande work, some park work and cosmetic work on the bridges. The cosmetic work on the Yale Street Bridge is extremely suspect from a financial point of view in light of the ratings for that bridge.

They would only cut a few feet into the road to access utilities. The 380 agreement allows the City to REPLACE the entire street, as well as REPLACE the water, sewer and storm water utilities. It is the same approach that the City has used on N. Main, Studewood, and 11th Street. The developer would not be obligated to replace the street and utilities just to access them.

This is all work that would be applauded by area residents if not for the Walmart being built nearby. Because of Walmart, (some) residents are now complaining about rehabilitation of dilapidated city streets. It is all quite amusing.

[Leonard]

"The 380 agreement allows the City to REPLACE the entire street, as well as REPLACE the water, sewer and storm water utilities."

Where did you get this information? The are connecting to existing infrastructure, not replacing it.

The City isn't doing this work - the developer is - and on their schedule. They are doing the minimum required for the development.

And not only is the amount of interest uncapped, so is the interest rate.

[Leonard]

They only replaced half of Bonner - because they only tore up half of Bonner to connect to the sanitary sewer. Half is not the entire street. At times they had no permits for this work.

They are doing some replacement of storm sewer infrastructure on Yale - but only because it is required to keep the development from flooding. This will hasten the flow of water from the development's parking lot to White Oak Bayou - causing more flooding issues for Woodland Heights. Lack of retention is grandfathered in.

The infrastructure being developed is so that the development can meet minimum standards.

[samagon]

"The 380 agreement allows the City to REPLACE the entire street, as well as REPLACE the water, sewer and storm water utilities."

Where did you get this information? The are connecting to existing infrastructure, not replacing it.

The City isn't doing this work - the developer is - and on their schedule. They are doing the minimum required for the development.

And not only is the amount of interest uncapped, so is the interest rate.

It may be beneficial for you to define what you think 'minimum required' means, cause from what they are doing, and what I've seen other developers do as 'minimum required' don't add up to the same.

In my mind, minimum required would be cutting out the curb and pouring an entry into the parking lot, not redoing an entire street.

[RedScare]

They are doing some replacement of storm sewer infrastructure on Yale

Yep, just like I said.

[Leonard]

The requirements are set by the City, not by what I think are minimum requirements or by what you observe at other developments.

They have to cut open the street to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. They are required to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer by the City. The City doesn't let them leave the street cut open, therefore they are required to rebuild the street. A lot of this infrastructure runs under streets which is why the street has to be torn up and rebuilt.

They are required to install traffic control devices that are laid out in their Traffic Impact Analysis which the City also requires them to do.

Redscare, yes, but it is required.

[RedScare]

So, that doesn't change my original statement.

[RedScare]

The requirements are set by the City, not by what I think are minimum requirements or by what you observe at other developments.

They have to cut open the street to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. They are required to connect to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer by the City. The City doesn't let them leave the street cut open, therefore they are required to rebuild the street. A lot of this infrastructure runs under streets which is why the street has to be torn up and rebuilt.

They are required to install traffic control devices that are laid out in their Traffic Impact Analysis which the City also requires them to do.

Redscare, yes, but it is required.

I should point out that much of this post is extreme exageration. Developers are not required to rebuild entire streets just to access utilities. They simply make street cuts. And going under the street is often not an impediment, as contractors can drill horizontally.

Keep in mind, that even though this is a new poster, he is not immune to making up requirements, just as the older poster does. Leonard, feel feel to link to the City Code sections that require entire street rebuilds for simple street cuts.

I'll be waiting patiently.

[Leonard]

Bonner - they did not build the entire street.

[Leonard]

Redscare, specifically what is "extreme exaggeration" about my post?

[TheNiche]

Where did you get this information? The are connecting to existing infrastructure, not replacing it.

So, you're arguing that (almost) six million dollars is being spent on a water/sewer connection. That's just ignorant.

Go research the issue on RUDH's website. Start with this document. Educate yourself before you spew falsehoods into the public sphere; at least then you can bloviate credibly.

The City isn't doing this work - the developer is - and on their schedule. They are doing the minimum required for the development.

According to the RUDH document I just linked to, the developer must make the following assurances and safeguards:

• Ainbinder is required to construct the improvements up to City standards, obtain City approval of its plans and specifications, and abide by the permitting process. Art. II, §B.
  
• The City engineer must certify Ainbinder’s work. Art. II, §B.
  
• Ainbinder must hire its subcontractors using the “competitive seals proposal method” which the City may supervise. Art. II, §C.
  
• Drainage on the land will be no worse than it was when it was operated as a steel mill. Art. 1, ¶2.
  
• Ainbinder will convey to the City all public improvements (except the optional detention ponds) at the competition of each “integral stage” of construction. Art. II, § F.
  
• The City may audit Ainbinder’s costs of construction at its own expense. Art. II, §G.
  
• The City will require Ainbinder, at the tax payer’s expense, to: (1) Construct sidewalks wider that the standard 4 ft; and (2) plant trees along Yale and Heights that are larger in caliber than the standard 1.5”.
  

So...the developer is doing the work to the engineering specifications set forth by the City of Houston, however is specifically required to exceed the minimum standards in order to qualify for reimbursement. Your statement is factually incorrect according to people who have organized to agree with the sentiment of your comments!

And besides... If the City were doing it, would you expect that they should exceed their own specs? And if they did, then what would be the point of them having specs in the first place? If the City is either over-building its infrastructure or under-specifying it, then isn't it the City's fault rather than those that play by the City's rules? And shouldn't you just be pissed off in general, understanding that vastly more work is being done by the City to its own specs than is being done at this one inconsequential site?

And not only is the amount of interest uncapped, so is the interest rate.

The effective term of the loan is flexible, providing the City with up to 15 months after the anchor tenant opens to make payment. Payment could be made sooner if the City so desires. Interest rates on a shopping center with Wal-Mart as a pre-leased anchor should be very low; and prime + 1% on any portion attributed to equity rather than debt is also very favorable to the City. In any case, six million dollars in the grand scheme of a much more expensive development does not create incentive for the developer to try to draw out the project or to obtain anything but the lowest-cost financing. The on-time completion of the shopping center is in everyone's mutual and unconflicted interest.

[Leonard]

Yes, I am arguing that the $6M is for water and sewer connections and traffic controls required by the TIA for the project. What do you think it's for?

Which minimum standards are exceeded?

There's nothing that compels Ainbinder to take out a single loan for the 380 items and the rest of the project. There is no cap on interest rate in the 380. Whether or not you think they will get a great interest rate does not change the fact that the contract does not protect the City. In fact, the 380 itself calls for 10% interest rate if the City does not pay on the 15 month anniversary.

The interest does not start accumulating when the Walmart opens, it starts accumulating when Ainbinder borrows it. Ainbinder started accumulating interest on the money they borrowed for the Koehler Street Extension over a year before construction started (they did not start construction for over a year after the 380 passed).

The Orr development started after the Ainbinder development. The Orr development is almost complete. Although there is no schedule in the 380, it's already too late for the Ainbinder development to open "on time".

[JJxvi]

Uh, what?

[Leonard]

JJxvi: 380 bad.

[RedScare]

Some residents say: 380 good.

[RedScare]

Yes, I am arguing that the $6M is for water and sewer connections and traffic controls required by the TIA for the project. What do you think it's for?

Which minimum standards are exceeded?

There's nothing that compels Ainbinder to take out a single loan for the 380 items and the rest of the project. There is no cap on interest rate in the 380. Whether or not you think they will get a great interest rate does not change the fact that the contract does not protect the City. In fact, the 380 itself calls for 10% interest rate if the City does not pay on the 15 month anniversary.

The interest does not start accumulating when the Walmart opens, it starts accumulating when Ainbinder borrows it. Ainbinder started accumulating interest on the money they borrowed for the Koehler Street Extension over a year before construction started (they did not start construction for over a year after the 380 passed).

The Orr development started after the Ainbinder development. The Orr development is almost complete. Although there is no schedule in the 380, it's already too late for the Ainbinder development to open "on time".

Translation: Because I don't know all of what is included, I will assume nothing other than what we already know is included. Then, we will throw out some terms without context, knowing that everyone who hates Walmart will shriek in horror at said terms, without knowing whether those terms are bad or not.

Meanwhile, we will lambaste those who actually appreciate new infrastructure as supporters of corruption and cronyism.

[Leonard]

Well I hope we get to find out exactly how much the City pays for this 380. The Kroger one is awful too even though it does have some schedule and a fixed interest rate. The HEB one is just ridiculous.

[Leonard]

Redscare, if you want to see the context, read the 380. You can find them all here: http://204.235.237.46/finance/ecodev/380.html

I don't recall lambasting anyone, or using saying anything about corruption or cronyism.

[RedScare]

Well, you stay right on it. As for me, I enjoy driving on my new Studewood, North Main, and 11th Streets, and I will enjoy driving on my new Yale and Summer Street cut through to PetSmart. I even enjoy driving on my new I-10 feeder road, which, as a Heights resident, I am supposed to hate. So sue me. I pay a lot of property taxes, and I enjoy seeing some of those taxes go to improve the streets, water mains and storm sewers in and near my neighborhood. If a 380 financing mechanism brings these infrastructure improvements to my 'hood sooner, all the better. That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction.

[Leonard]

"That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction. "

Ponzi schemes have been around for over 100 years.

[s3mh]

That a few Walmart haters have managed to concoct a bit of faux outrage at a municipal financing scheme that has been around for decades doesn't faze me in the least...especially, given that the object of their hatred is currently under construction.

The problem is that sec 380 isn't supposed to be a financing scheme for municipalities. There are plenty of existing financing mechanisms to do what the Walmart 380 agreement does. 380 agreements are supposed to provide assistance to developers who would not otherwise be able to build without the assistance of public funds, whether to fund public improvements or to provide direct loans or grants to make the development possible. Every dollar that goes to a development that does not need the assistance is potentially a dollar taken away from a potential development that does need the assistance (like the plan to rennovate the old Texaco Building on Rusk, which is short just over $10 mil to get the project rolling). Just because you are happy to see infrastructure improvements does not mean that the City is doing what they should be doing with 380 agreements.

Edited March 28, 2012 by s3mh

[Leonard]

s3mh - you are exactly right. 380's were not set up to be loans TO the City, they're supposed to be loans or grants FROM the City.

Both the Ainbinder and Kroger 380's are set up as loans to the City for work that should be paid for by the developer.

[RedScare]

The problem is that sec 380 isn't supposed to be a financing scheme for municipalities. There are plenty of existing financing mechanisms to do what the Walmart 380 agreement does. 380 agreements are supposed to provide assistance to developers who would not otherwise be able to build without the assistance of public funds, whether to fund public improvements or to provide direct loans or grants to make the development possible. Every dollar that goes to a development that does not need the assistance is potentially a dollar taken away from a potential development that does need the assistance (like the plan to rennovate the old Texaco Building on Rusk, which is short just over $10 mil to get the project rolling). Just because you are happy to see infrastructure improvements does not mean that the City is doing what they should be doing with 380 agreements.

Whoa! s3mh and Leonard agree with each other. Didn't see that coming.

Actually, the REAL problem here is that I (and many others) do not mind the 380 being used for this purpose. You will simply have to keep looking for someone who cares. I support BOTH 380 agreements. I will also shop at both stores, thereby allowing my tax dollars to help retire the debts.

These 380s have nothing whatsoever to do with projects in Downtown, which have myriad grant and financing programs available to them. And, complaining that two developers got 380s because you wanted a 3rd developer to get one is just the kind of hypocrisy that we have come to expect out of RUDH. This is just as hypocritical as all of the posts criticizing Walmart for selling Chinese products while the same posters are silent regarding the dead Chinese workers making shiny Apple iPads.

When you guys get your outrage all on the same page, give me a ring. Until then, take your complaints to the Facebook page, where no one actually looks at the substance of your rants.

Edited March 29, 2012 by RedScare

[TheNiche]

You won't get any argument from me that 380 Agreements are fertile ground for misanthropic endeavors. If they are administered as they have been to date, then I don't see that they should continue to be administered at all. And Leonard is right, the Gulfgate one is ridiculous! It makes Ainbinder's look wholly legitimate and even-handed by comparison...but that's just it, is that this one does't really piss me off. The developer and the City both wanted the infrastructure, but neither needed it; an arrangement was made whereby the infrastructure could be afforded now instead of later without conflicts of interest, and with managed risks for both parties. It wasn't perfect, but everybody wins as per the spirit of the law. I'm still opposed to this one because I'm opposed to all of them, but that stance has nothing to do with how well this one was crafted or that Wal-Mart is a tenant.

Where you I seem to disagree is that I oppose comments that are ill-informed or coercive, and that is how I would categorize the bulk of the NIMBY response to this issue, including yours.

[Leonard]

TheNiche, I don't support ANY 380's. I don't know if RUDH does or not.

How could Walmart not "need" the infrastructure in the 380? They are required to connect to water, sewer and storm sewer. They are required to put in traffic control measures (turn lanes and traffic signals).

My comments are neither ill informed nor coercive.