Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[SilverJK]

Walmart was the one with the scheme to get Parker to fork over the coin to make it happen. 

 

 

This comment is hearsay at best, if not an outright lie/fabrication.  

 

I'm am sorry your offended, I removed the word "lies".  I was more implying your statement was based off a lie/fabrication not that you personally made up the lie.

Edited June 17, 2013 by SilverJK

[JJxvi]

Has the fire hydrant been moved yet? 

 

I don't know. Ive never found it. Other than the one that isn't even adjacent to Ainbinder's property.

[Leonard]

Did you go and look?  I think it's between Chase bank and Walmart on Koehler. 

[august948]

Building the Walmart prevents something better being built there.  A grassy field is better than a Walmart, in my opinion.  I wouldn't buy a house next to a Walmart.  You might. 

So a grassy field is better than a Walmart, eh? I'm guessing you've never been to Walmart then. Can you pick up groceries in a grassy field? Or buy toothpaste? Get some clothes for the kids? Diapers? Oil for the car? Air filters for the A/C?

Matter of fact I do live withing walking distance of a Walmart and it and the Lowes next to it and the HEB across the street have all been improvements over the grassy fields that were there before them. Now we've got a Sam's going in even closer next to the Super Target that I can also walk to. All big improvements over the grassy fields where they were built.

[Leonard]

Thanks, SilverJK, I appreciate that.  But I do believe that Walmart was involved in the 380, and I came to that conclusion on my own after reading a lot of stuff about it. 

 

And as one of my patented unrelated statements, I see on Swamplot that Buc-ees has gotten a 380 in Baytown and that this 380  "involves a waived height restriction for the store’s beaver beacon, so Buc-ee’s can raise one 100 ft. into the air".  This seems like a great use of Baytown's tax dollars to me  - giant beaver signs. 

 

http://swamplot.com/buc-ees-putting-itself-above-baytown/2013-06-17/

[s3mh]

So a grassy field is better than a Walmart, eh? I'm guessing you've never been to Walmart then. Can you pick up groceries in a grassy field? Or buy toothpaste? Get some clothes for the kids? Diapers? Oil for the car? Air filters for the A/C?

 

 

A grassy field is better than a Walmart if that means that something better will be developed.  If you look around Houston inside the loop, something better is being developed almost everywhere you look.  West Ave, Post Oak at W. Gray, Regent Square, the Mix midtown, Kirby Grove, River Oaks District, Sage Hotel, and 2801 Weslayan.  On every lot, you could put up a strip mall and say that it was better than what was there before (grassy field, run down garden style apartments, etc.).  But if the developers went for the quick money and put in more strip malls and big box stores, development inside the loop would be crap compared to what is actually going in. 

[barracuda]

Building the Walmart prevents something better being built there.  A grassy field is better than a Walmart, in my opinion.  I wouldn't buy a house next to a Walmart.  You might. 

 

Regardless of whether or not Walmart is great to live next to or not, the 380 was a waste of $6M of our taxpayer money, since Parker and Ainbinder both say they would have built it with our without the 380. 

 

Keep in mind this was built on a brownfield, not a pristine wilderness site. If this were the Katy Prairie instead of a former industrial site, I would agree with you. 

[SilverJK]

A grassy field is better than a Walmart if that means that something better will be developed.  If you look around Houston inside the loop, something better is being developed almost everywhere you look.  West Ave, Post Oak at W. Gray, Regent Square, the Mix midtown, Kirby Grove, River Oaks District, Sage Hotel, and 2801 Weslayan.  On every lot, you could put up a strip mall and say that it was better than what was there before (grassy field, run down garden style apartments, etc.).  But if the developers went for the quick money and put in more strip malls and big box stores, development inside the loop would be crap compared to what is actually going in. 

 

But you don't get to just decide on what is good and what isn't.  Protesting something that is perfectly within its rights isn't going to get you anywhere.  What you want is zoning, which has been shot down everytime it has been brought up.  I know you think it is important to have your idealistic version of development, (which I mostly  agree would be nice), but where you lose me is where you try to stop certain developments after the fact.  If there had been a group for the past 7 years pushing for some sort of mixed use development in the walmart location, and they have assited in sourcing/oraganizing a 380 style agreement for a particular type of business in that location, I could understand being upset with ainbinder for building this out for Walmart.  However nobody said anything really until ainbinder announced it would be a walmart. 

 

Why not find the next developable parcels of land that you think are at risk of becoming strip centers, and try to create something to make it benificial to the developer to build your idealistic development?  Proactive vs Reactive.  That would be something I bet more people would be supportive of.

[RedScare]

A grassy field is better than a Walmart if that means that something better will be developed.  If you look around Houston inside the loop, something better is being developed almost everywhere you look.  West Ave, Post Oak at W. Gray, Regent Square, the Mix midtown, Kirby Grove, River Oaks District, Sage Hotel, and 2801 Weslayan.  On every lot, you could put up a strip mall and say that it was better than what was there before (grassy field, run down garden style apartments, etc.).  But if the developers went for the quick money and put in more strip malls and big box stores, development inside the loop would be crap compared to what is actually going in. 

 

Virtually every development that you listed is not better for me...and for most of my neighbors. I do not need luxury midrise apartments, nor overpriced womens clothing. It likely is not better for you either, but you won't admit it. That's OK. I know that you go to Walmart in the middle of the night to pick up stuff you need, whether you admit it to us or not.

 

The more I think about it, those were some really hideous examples to attempt to outdo a Walmart. Maybe an HEB or a Home Depot, but overpriced clothing and jewelry? Come on!

[RedScare]

But you don't get to just decide on what is good and what isn't.  Protesting something that is perfectly within its rights isn't going to get you anywhere.  What you want is zoning, which has been shot down everytime it has been brought up.  I know you think it is important to have your idealistic version of development, (which I mostly  agree would be nice), but where you lose me is where you try to stop certain developments after the fact.  If there had been a group for the past 7 years pushing for some sort of mixed use development in the walmart location, and they have assited in sourcing/oraganizing a 380 style agreement for a particular type of business in that location, I could understand being upset with ainbinder for building this out for Walmart.  However nobody said anything really until ainbinder announced it would be a walmart. 

 

Why not find the next developable parcels of land that you think are at risk of becoming strip centers, and try to create something to make it benificial to the developer to build your idealistic development?  Proactive vs Reactive.  That would be something I bet more people would be supportive of.

 

Even worse, they applauded the exact same development with Target as an anchor, while complaining about Walmart.

[august948]

A grassy field is better than a Walmart if that means that something better will be developed.  If you look around Houston inside the loop, something better is being developed almost everywhere you look.  West Ave, Post Oak at W. Gray, Regent Square, the Mix midtown, Kirby Grove, River Oaks District, Sage Hotel, and 2801 Weslayan.  On every lot, you could put up a strip mall and say that it was better than what was there before (grassy field, run down garden style apartments, etc.).  But if the developers went for the quick money and put in more strip malls and big box stores, development inside the loop would be crap compared to what is actually going in. 

 

Was that spot ever seriously considered for a mixed use development?  A Walmart is far better than yet another mixed use pipe dream that might take years to develop and fill.  You are right, though, it is about the money.  If there was more money to be made converting that (former industiral?) lot into a mixed-use utopia, you can be they would have done that.  Like it or not, Walmart is more popular (and useful) than any mixed use retail development could hope to be.

[Leonard]

The Target development didn't get $6M worth of taxpayer money. 

 

And since we haven't defined "better", the Walmart isn't "better" than an empty field in generating tax dollars for the City, that money's been spent for the next 10 years on stuff like fire hydrants in the middle of the sidewalk and paint for bridges that are scheduled for demolition. 

 

In fact, since the 380 rebates all the property taxes, not just the increase (one of the lies in the Request for Council Action), the City will get about $150K less in property taxes per year until it's paid off. 

August, why do you care?  You live in Westchase.  Just a big Walmart fan?

[august948]

Keep in mind this was built on a brownfield, not a pristine wilderness site. If this were the Katy Prairie instead of a former industrial site, I would agree with you. 

 

That's a bit of a red-herring, though.  The Katy praire has been farmed and ranched for at least 150 years.  There isn't much that is actually "pristine wilderness" still around in Texas.

[RedScare]

Leonard, you just keep getting worse and worse. You keep on telling yourself that stuff, and s3mh will keep on agreeing with you...but not many others. You've been beating that drum for a year, and no one has come over to your side that wasn't already a Walmart hater. The problem is, your Walmart hate keeps showing through, so no one believes your 380s, or your caliper inches, or your wheelchair ramps. You are simply a Walmart hater, and Walmart is already open.

 

See ya over on aisle 3!

[august948]

The Target development didn't get $6M worth of taxpayer money. 

 

And since we haven't defined "better", the Walmart isn't "better" than an empty field in generating tax dollars for the City, that money's been spent for the next 10 years on stuff like fire hydrants in the middle of the sidewalk and paint for bridges that are scheduled for demolition. 

 

In fact, since the 380 rebates all the property taxes, not just the increase (one of the lies in the Request for Council Action), the City will get about $150K less in property taxes per year until it's paid off. 

August, why do you care?  You live in Westchase.  Just a big Walmart fan?

 

That and I find it amusing and sad that anyone would object so strenously to a Walmart.  It reminds me of the Ashby Highrise "controversy".  Except that I have more sympathy for the neighbors of the Ashby as they have at least a tenuous claim that someone might peek at them while they sunbathe in their backyards.  A Walmart in the neighborhood is just good for everyone.  There is no downside.

[Leonard]

The downside is the 380.  Red, I thought you were a lawyer?  Have you ever read the  Ainbinder 380 and the Request for Council Action?  Probably too advanced for you - pretty sure you wouldn't be able to figure out the interest rate - it's tricky.

[august948]

The downside is the 380.  Red, I thought you were a lawyer?  Have you ever read the  Ainbinder 380 and the Request for Council Action?  Probably too advanced for you - pretty sure you wouldn't be able to figure out the interest rate - it's tricky.

 

So you'd be happy as a clam with Walmart being there, if only it wasn't for that dratted 380?

[august948]

Thanks, SilverJK, I appreciate that.  But I do believe that Walmart was involved in the 380, and I came to that conclusion on my own after reading a lot of stuff about it. 

 

And as one of my patented unrelated statements, I see on Swamplot that Buc-ees has gotten a 380 in Baytown and that this 380  "involves a waived height restriction for the store’s beaver beacon, so Buc-ee’s can raise one 100 ft. into the air".  This seems like a great use of Baytown's tax dollars to me  - giant beaver signs. 

 

http://swamplot.com/buc-ees-putting-itself-above-baytown/2013-06-17/

 

If there was ever any greater reason to support a 380 than for a Walmart, a 380 for a Buc-ee's would be it.  A hundred foot beaver beacon is awesome.

[RedScare]

Aww, Leonard is getting frustrated that no one agrees with him, so he is taking pot shots at me.   

 

Trust me, Leonard, I've been blasted by far better than you, and over far more important things than a 380 agreement. To answer your question, I have read only part of the 380, because I have no qualms with it. Why waste my time reading something that I no no problem with?

[Leonard]

Aww, Leonard is getting frustrated that no one agrees with him, so he is taking pot shots at me.   

 

Trust me, Leonard, I've been blasted by far better than you, and over far more important things than a 380 agreement. To answer your question, I have read only part of the 380, because I have no qualms with it. Why waste my time reading something that I no no problem with?

 

 

Red, thanks for the laugh.  Glad I've spent so much time debating with you over a document you haven't bothered to read.  Yeah, sure, reading part of it is enough to know you have no issues with it.  Next time I need half a contract read, I'll give you a call. 

 

August - yeah, pretty much my issues are with the 380.  And now of course the shoddy execution of the work. 

[august948]

Red, thanks for the laugh.  Glad I've spent so much time debating with you over a document you haven't bothered to read.  Yeah, sure, reading part of it is enough to know you have no issues with it.  Next time I need half a contract read, I'll give you a call. 

 

August - yeah, pretty much my issues are with the 380.  And now of course the shoddy execution of the work. 

 

I might be way off here, but I would guess that an experienced lawyer could skim a document, find the relevant parts, and interpret them without having to read every single word.

 

Glad to hear you are welcoming Walmart as a fantastic addition to the neighborhood after all.

[RedScare]

You really haven't been debating me. I don't care. I am fine with the City executing 380s with developers. I didn't read it because no one paid me to read it. And now you are mad that I didn't care enough to read a document that I do not care about? Priceless!

[Leonard]

You really haven't been debating me. I don't care. I am fine with the City executing 380s with developers. I didn't read it because no one paid me to read it. And now you are mad that I didn't care enough to read a document that I do not care about? Priceless!

 

I'm not mad at you, you are making me laugh. 

 

Is someone paying you to post your unfounded opinions on HAIF? Or is that a freebie?

 

Has anyone besides me read the 380?  And the Request for Council Action? 

 

August, feel free to hire lawyers to skim documents for you.  I'm sure that's what the lawyers that crafted the 380 wanted.  The interest rate is a little tricky to figure out. 

[august948]

Like Red said, I'm also fine with the City signing 380's.  Matter of fact, I might petition for one with Buc-ee's inside the loop.  I don't care how they got the Walmart there, just that they made the deal happen.  If there was a real issue here, lawsuits would have been filed and won.

[Ross]

And, WalMart/Ainbinder did not get a gift of $6 million tax dollars. That's an outright falsehood.

[Leonard]

Ross, I assume your opinion is also based on not reading the 380.  And yes, they haven't gotten it yet, and with interest it will be much more than $6M. 

[Ross]

Leonard, did they not spend the $6 million as directed by the agreement with the City? I don't think the City just up and handed them a pile o' cash for no reason whatsoever. I've read the 380. It was pretty boring, as legal documents go, so I don't remember the specifics. I assume the City has these wonderful people called "lawyers" to make sure that all parties perform as agreed in the contract, which means I don't have to do that myself.

[NSA]

Greetings forum members, this is the NSA.

 

We have been monitoring this thread for some time now, and have recently received approval to make the following statements:

 

s3mh, you are wrong about Walmart, the 380, and pretty much everything else. We've seen the evidence, have the data, but unfortunately cannot divulge why you are wrong.

 

Unfortunately due to recent events we need to refocus our efforts and as a result will no longer be monitoring this topic. To be honest it has grown rather tiresome given that RUDH failed to adequately prepare the next enemy, and no real enemies are in the outrage pipeline. A bit of advise, always focus on tomorrow's enemy and let today's die gracefully. Trust us on this one.

 

Oh, and by the way, most mom & pops are covers for old Soviet sleeper agents still awaiting their next orders.

 

The NSA

Edited June 18, 2013 by NSA

[august948]

Uh oh...someone put "invade" in the topic title and now we're on a government watchlist.

[Leonard]

Ross - oh yeah, politicians and lawyers are the most trustworthy people around.