Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[SilverJK]

maybe you and your pals should go stand on the bridge with a sign... I've seen several 18wheelers drive on this bridge. Oh yeah, you only care about walmart trucks causing an incident.

[RedScare]

And it sure as hell is Walmart's problem. If they are going to need 7-9 18 wheelers a day to supply their store, they are going to need to put that store somewhere where their is adequate 18 wheeler access. The solution right now is to have the trucks go down Heights, turn on Koehler (which will not have a traffic light at Heights) and then head over to the development. Good luck to anyone on Heights or Koehler when those 18 wheelers are trying to make right turns coming in and left turns going out.

Well, there you go. You posted the solution to your problem right there in your post. Saved the City and taxpayers $9 million in the process. Thanks for your help.

Next complaint, please!

[s3mh]

Well, there you go. You posted the solution to your problem right there in your post. Saved the City and taxpayers $9 million in the process. Thanks for your help.

Next complaint, please!

If you think that Walmart's trucks will stick to that route, I have got a bridge on Yale St. that I would like to sell you.

[RedScare]

If you think that Walmart's trucks will stick to that route, I have got a bridge on Yale St. that I would like to sell you.

Doesn't matter what you or I think. The solution to the problem lies a mere 200 feet away. There are fines for violating the restriction, and Walmart, and their drivers, is not in the habit of running up fines just for the fun of it. They will simply tell their drivers to avoid that bridge. If they do not, the driver is responsible for the fine. It is illegal to restrict Walmart's right to do business simply because one of its drivers may receive a traffic citation. Trader Joe's drivers would probably do the same. So will the Whole Foods drivers who will use the same exit from the freeway.

Next complaint!

[samagon]

From your link:

Structure # 121020B71457079

Crossing WHITE OAK BAYOU

Bridge Located on YALE ST

Bridge is 0.1 MI S OF IH 10

Bridge Status POSTED

Restriction Notice Load Restricted to Gross Loading and Single or Tandem Axle

Load Restriction in lbs 40000(GROSS LOAD SHOWN)

Latitude 29.77521572

Longitude -95.39861043

And you just made up the per axel thing. It is a 21,000 lb limit for tandem axle vehicles according to the sign on the bridge.

Hey Bro,

Read.

http://ops.fhwa.dot....wghts/index.htm

also, it is obvious, from the image shown that the number has CHANGED, from 21000lbs to 40000lbs. I assumed the number has remained the same, as the bridge hasn't changed in the period of time from when we last discussed this in January to today. But you're right, it is listed as 40k lbs. you should also look at what you copy/pasted, that makes a difference as well.

it's funny you reference the sign from the bridge, when it was you who said that the sign was missing, or am I confusing you with one of the other people from Irresponsible Urban Development Houston?

anyway, besides, like you said, they'll go over the bridge on Heights anyway. and yeah, they will stick to that route because the cabs have GPS transponders, and if they don't, they'll likely get fired.

Edited May 12, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

Doesn't matter what you or I think. The solution to the problem lies a mere 200 feet away. There are fines for violating the restriction, and Walmart, and their drivers, is not in the habit of running up fines just for the fun of it. They will simply tell their drivers to avoid that bridge. If they do not, the driver is responsible for the fine. It is illegal to restrict Walmart's right to do business simply because one of its drivers may receive a traffic citation. Trader Joe's drivers would probably do the same. So will the Whole Foods drivers who will use the same exit from the freeway.

Next complaint!

If you think the soon to be cut to the bone HPD will catch Walmart's 18 wheelers crossing the bridge, I have got a bridge on Yale St that is only restriced to 20k lbs per axel. You can roll 100k lb 18 wheelers across it.

This is all supposed to be addressed in a traffic control plan. Any responsible municipality would require a developer to make infrastructure upgrades that are required for the development. In fact, the City is requiring the widening of Yale St AFTER the bridge to add a left turn lane into the development. If they can do that, they can require an upgrade of the bridge. 18 wheeler traffic is just one issue. All traffic will idle on that bridge during peak volume. That will just continue to degrade the bridge. Walmart is already getting the benefit of 6 mil in tax dollars. No reason they can't share some of the burden of this development.

[RedScare]

If you think the soon to be cut to the bone HPD will catch Walmart's 18 wheelers crossing the bridge, I have got a bridge on Yale St that is only restriced to 20k lbs per axel. You can roll 100k lb 18 wheelers across it.

This is all supposed to be addressed in a traffic control plan. Any responsible municipality would require a developer to make infrastructure upgrades that are required for the development. In fact, the City is requiring the widening of Yale St AFTER the bridge to add a left turn lane into the development. If they can do that, they can require an upgrade of the bridge. 18 wheeler traffic is just one issue. All traffic will idle on that bridge during peak volume. That will just continue to degrade the bridge. Walmart is already getting the benefit of 6 mil in tax dollars. No reason they can't share some of the burden of this development.

Sticking with a failed argument, I see. The City has a reasonable and simple solution to the issue, by requiring trucks to use the Heights bridge. The traffic control plan will simply dictate that trucks use Heights to access the store. You and your friends may continue to use the failed argument, but the people in charge will simply ignore you, as I have.

As for idling traffic on the Yale Street bridge, see post #1539. Again, making an argument that traffic engineers know to be false will only be ignored by those you hope to convince. It probably makes you and your friends feel better to say something, anything, but those in charge will ignore you.

Carry on.

EDIT: Oh, a quick note on the possibility of 181 layoffs at HPD. It is not final, and the layoffs will likely be from the Houston Jail staff, not from patrol. In any event, it is unlikely to affect the Traffic Division, whose activities bring badly needed revenue to the City. Again, your argument lacks forethought or facts.

Next complaint!

Edited May 12, 2011 by RedScare

[J008]

EDIT: Oh, a quick note on the possibility of 181 layoffs at HPD. It is not final, and the layoffs will likely be from the Houston Jail staff, not from patrol. In any event, it is unlikely to affect the Traffic Division, whose activities bring badly needed revenue to the City. Again, your argument lacks forethought or facts.

Next complaint!

Thanks I have changed my comment.

I agree it won't affect wal mart at all they will just put it on our tab.

So $6M 380 agreement + $9M bridge we're standing at $15M, plus whatever this giant feeder extra interstate exit every half mile cost.

We should all be thrilled to be such a crucial part of this whole new urban walmart experiment, maybe they will hire the teachers, possibly firefighters, houston jail staff, police officers, etc.. that we can no longer afford.

[SilverJK]

or the trucks can just drive down heights, $9m saved!

[RedScare]

Thanks I have changed my comment.

I agree it won't affect wal mart at all they will just put it on our tab.

So $6M 380 agreement + $9M bridge we're standing at $15M, plus whatever this giant feeder extra interstate exit every half mile cost.

We should all be thrilled to be such a crucial part of this whole new urban walmart experiment, maybe they will hire the teachers, possibly firefighters, houston jail staff, police officers, etc.. that we can no longer afford.

Well, since I thoroughly enjoy driving on the rebuilt Studewood and North Main streets, and will soon enjoy the rebuilt 11th Street, and admittedly enjoying the new access provided by the new feeders, I will not hypocritically say that I would not appreciate the new Yale and Heights improvements covered by the 380. I will enjoy them, regardless who was the catalyst behind the improvements. I would also enjoy a new Yale bridge, though we have already solved that problem by sending the trucks down Heights.

And yes, the property taxes Walmart will pay on its new $15-20 million building, as well as sales taxes from the junk that it sells WILL help pay for jailers, firefighters and teachers. And Walmart does not get homestead exemptions, like all of its opponents do. Walmart will pay for far more firefighters than all of RUDH combined.

[s3mh]

Sticking with a failed argument, I see. The City has a reasonable and simple solution to the issue, by requiring trucks to use the Heights bridge. The traffic control plan will simply dictate that trucks use Heights to access the store. You and your friends may continue to use the failed argument, but the people in charge will simply ignore you, as I have.

As for idling traffic on the Yale Street bridge, see post #1539. Again, making an argument that traffic engineers know to be false will only be ignored by those you hope to convince. It probably makes you and your friends feel better to say something, anything, but those in charge will ignore you.

Carry on.

EDIT: Oh, a quick note on the possibility of 181 layoffs at HPD. It is not final, and the layoffs will likely be from the Houston Jail staff, not from patrol. In any event, it is unlikely to affect the Traffic Division, whose activities bring badly needed revenue to the City. Again, your argument lacks forethought or facts.

Next complaint!

Please check your email. I have just sent you an important message from a friend who is a Prince in Nigeria. He needs help cashing an international lottery ticket. If you give him $1,000 to pay for the handling, he will give you 10% of the ticket ($100,000!!!).

If you buy into the idea that HPD will enforce the bridge load limitations (they didn't even care about it until the community made a stink) and Walmart will abide by any unenforceable agreement with the city (traffic control plans are just engineering analysis), then you need to get your $1,000 off to Nigeria asap before someone else does.

And traffic engineers are not structural engineers. There are differing opinions on the effect of idling traffic on a bridge. But, it is a new stress on a very old and deteriorating bridge. The only responsible thing to do is to fix the bridge. Walmart is not worth the risk.

[J008]

Well, since I thoroughly enjoy driving on the rebuilt Studewood and North Main streets, and will soon enjoy the rebuilt 11th Street, and admittedly enjoying the new access provided by the new feeders, I will not hypocritically say that I would not appreciate the new Yale and Heights improvements covered by the 380. I will enjoy them, regardless who was the catalyst behind the improvements. I would also enjoy a new Yale bridge, though we have already solved that problem by sending the trucks down Heights.

And yes, the property taxes Walmart will pay on its new $15-20 million building, as well as sales taxes from the junk that it sells WILL help pay for jailers, firefighters and teachers. And Walmart does not get homestead exemptions, like all of its opponents do. Walmart will pay for far more firefighters than all of RUDH combined.

Can you explain how the 380 works? I was under the impression that they were reimbursed through the city forgoing sales or property taxes.

With so many new walmarts coming on line in town you'd think they'd be hiring with all that tax revenue youre talking about.

[RedScare]

And traffic engineers are not structural engineers. There are differing opinions on the effect of idling traffic on a bridge.

No, there really are not. The effects of moving weight versus idle weight are well known. It is not new. It is not controversial. It is not even advanced engineering. That you believe so explains a lot.

To J008. The 380 is with Ainbinder, the developer, not Walmart. This ain't Walmart's fight. Hence, the derision toward RUDH and its supporters.

[J008]

To J008. The 380 is with Ainbinder, the developer, not Walmart. This ain't Walmart's fight. Hence, the derision toward RUDH and its supporters.

So how does Ainbinder get reimbursed? My understanding is it is through the city diverting sales taxes from the development of the tenants (WM being the only one disclosed). Please let me know if this is not the case.

[RedScare]

I think that is correct. The difference in taxes between what the property is worth now and what it is worth once developed is refunded to pay the advance that Ainbinder gives the City for improvements. Similar to a TIRZ. Once the loan is paid off, the City gets all of the taxes on the development. It is pretty common for governments to give initial tax breaks to spur development. If this did not involve Walmart, no one would take issue. The City did it with Houston Pavillions, among others.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just noticed that you said "sales taxes". My understanding is it is only property tax revenue that is used. The sales taxes go to the City unencumbered.

Edited May 12, 2011 by RedScare

[J008]

It is pretty common for governments to give initial tax breaks to spur development. If this did not involve Walmart, no one would take issue.

I am glad they are spurring development in the "washington heights" there is no way that would have occurred with out some help.

[s3mh]

I think that is correct. The difference in taxes between what the property is worth now and what it is worth once developed is refunded to pay the advance that Ainbinder gives the City for improvements. Similar to a TIRZ. Once the loan is paid off, the City gets all of the taxes on the development. It is pretty common for governments to give initial tax breaks to spur development. If this did not involve Walmart, no one would take issue. The City did it with Houston Pavillions, among others.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just noticed that you said "sales taxes". My understanding is it is only property tax revenue that is used. The sales taxes go to the City unencumbered.

It is both property taxes and ad valorem taxes. The bump in property taxes isn't big enough to get the 380 paid off within the 10 year limitation per the ordinance. And this was only the second time the City gave out a 380 agreement outside of a TIRZ (Pavillions was in a TIRZ and was a big waste of money looking at the tens of thousands of empty retail space in that thing). The first was to Frank Liu for a bunch of townhomes and gated communities. In that one, the City actually pays for road improvements in a gated community. This 380 agreement was never intended to spur development. It was actually claimed to be a way to "use the developer's money" to get needed infrastructre improvements (which the developer was going to have to do anyway). The developer always said that he would build with or without it. So, it is really just a wealth transfer to the developer from taxpayers. And Walmart is the direct beneficiary as without the 380, the developer would have simply passed the cost on to Walmart.

[RedScare]

I'm OK with that. We get our upgraded streets years earlier. Perhaps less so for Frank Liu, but the Ainbinder 380 improves streets that I will use. You'll probably find most of your neighbors are OK with it, too.

Have fun at your protest.

[heights_yankee]

I am glad they are spurring development in the "washington heights" there is no way that would have occurred with out some help.

Yeah, because nothing has been happening in that part of town.

I support the idea of having a safer bridge and think it is a real issue. That being said, RUDH is pushing this and I think it's against their bad interest. As someone who is anti-Walmart (all Walmarts) I feel like a new bridge makes it easier for this damn thing to be built. Still, my concerns about the safety of the bridge actually outweigh my dislike of this development and my disgust about the anchor tenant.

[s3mh]

I'm OK with that. We get our upgraded streets years earlier. Perhaps less so for Frank Liu, but the Ainbinder 380 improves streets that I will use. You'll probably find most of your neighbors are OK with it, too.

Have fun at your protest.

It must be nice to be able to see the world in such simple and naive terms. Without the 380 agreement, the developer would still have been required to expand Yale St to get their traffic control plan approved. The developer was going to have to do many of the street improvements with or without the 380 agreement. The difference is not that they get done sooner. The difference is that your tax dollars go to pay for them instead of the developer passing on the cost to Walmart. So, in a city that is laying off employees by the hundreds, we are throwing 6 mil (plus interest over 10 years will be close to 10 mil total principal and interest) to Walmart so they can build a store and improvements that they would have built with or without the tax dollars.

[SilverJK]

Please check your email. I have just sent you an important message from a friend who is a Prince in Nigeria. He needs help cashing an international lottery ticket. If you give him $1,000 to pay for the handling, he will give you 10% of the ticket ($100,000!!!).

If you buy into the idea that HPD will enforce the bridge load limitations (they didn't even care about it until the community made a stink) and Walmart will abide by any unenforceable agreement with the city (traffic control plans are just engineering analysis), then you need to get your $1,000 off to Nigeria asap before someone else does.

And traffic engineers are not structural engineers. There are differing opinions on the effect of idling traffic on a bridge. But, it is a new stress on a very old and deteriorating bridge. The only responsible thing to do is to fix the bridge. Walmart is not worth the risk.

You realize that in this comment you are claiming the city won't do anything about enforcing the bridge load limitations (which you somehow blame Walmart), while trying to demand that the city force the developer to pay for bridge renovations. Let me make my point more clear... you are saying

"but.... the city won't enforce this" while saying "the city should enforce this..."

Your issues clearly should be with the city. Why not focus your efforts on getting the community behind having HPD enforce the bridge load limitations? I'm sure BOTH sides of the issue can support that. Oh yeah, you don't actually care about the bridge, your just looking for something to make walmart look evil. Go back to your RUDH friends and come up with another failed complaint.

[s3mh]

You realize that in this comment you are claiming the city won't do anything about enforcing the bridge load limitations (which you somehow blame Walmart), while trying to demand that the city force the developer to pay for bridge renovations. Let me make my point more clear... you are saying

"but.... the city won't enforce this" while saying "the city should enforce this..."

Your issues clearly should be with the city. Why not focus your efforts on getting the community behind having HPD enforce the bridge load limitations? I'm sure BOTH sides of the issue can support that. Oh yeah, you don't actually care about the bridge, your just looking for something to make walmart look evil. Go back to your RUDH friends and come up with another failed complaint.

I drive over the bridge twice a day every day. I care about the bridge more than I care about Walmart. I don't blame Walmart for the City failing to enforce the load limitations on the bridge. I blame Walmart for putting a store that needs 7-9 18 wheelers a day in a place that does not have adequate access for 18 wheelers and for taking the benefit of 6 mil in tax payer dollars for improvements while ignoring the most important infrastructure upgrade needed. And it is not an issue of whether the City will or won't enforce it. It is an issue of whether the City should even need to enforce the limitation. The only sane solution is to upgrade the bridge to handle 18 wheeler traffic. Relying on cops to keep 18 wheelers off the bridge is no solution at all. All they can do is write a ticket AFTER the load limitation has been violated and AFTER the damage has been done. Walmart can build all the suburban sprawl, soul-sucking junk shops they want. But they damn well are not going to endanger me and my community and push off all the infrastructure upgrades on to my tax dollars. Any remotely responsible actor in the community would recognize the issue and be willing to shift the 6 mil from the 380 agreement to take care of the bridge. Thus, I do not need to do anything to make Walmart look evil. They handle that quite well for themselves.

[Marksmu]

I drive over the bridge twice a day every day. I care about the bridge more than I care about Walmart. I don't blame Walmart for the City failing to enforce the load limitations on the bridge. I blame Walmart for putting a store that needs 7-9 18 wheelers a day in a place that does not have adequate access for 18 wheelers and for taking the benefit of 6 mil in tax payer dollars for improvements while ignoring the most important infrastructure upgrade needed. And it is not an issue of whether the City will or won't enforce it. It is an issue of whether the City should even need to enforce the limitation. The only sane solution is to upgrade the bridge to handle 18 wheeler traffic. Relying on cops to keep 18 wheelers off the bridge is no solution at all. All they can do is write a ticket AFTER the load limitation has been violated and AFTER the damage has been done. Walmart can build all the suburban sprawl, soul-sucking junk shops they want. But they damn well are not going to endanger me and my community and push off all the infrastructure upgrades on to my tax dollars. Any remotely responsible actor in the community would recognize the issue and be willing to shift the 6 mil from the 380 agreement to take care of the bridge. Thus, I do not need to do anything to make Walmart look evil. They handle that quite well for themselves.

You still seem unable to separate Ainbinder from Walmart....Walmart is doing nothing other than leasing space....Ainbinder is the entity that all of your rage should be directed towards....Walmart apparently is doing nothing more than leasing some space from someone...If the space is not adequate its not Walmarts responsibility to make it so, its the lessors job.

[SilverJK]

I drive over the bridge twice a day every day. I care about the bridge more than I care about Walmart. I don't blame Walmart for the City failing to enforce the load limitations on the bridge. I blame Walmart for putting a store that needs 7-9 18 wheelers a day in a place that does not have adequate access for 18 wheelers and for taking the benefit of 6 mil in tax payer dollars for improvements while ignoring the most important infrastructure upgrade needed. And it is not an issue of whether the City will or won't enforce it. It is an issue of whether the City should even need to enforce the limitation. The only sane solution is to upgrade the bridge to handle 18 wheeler traffic. Relying on cops to keep 18 wheelers off the bridge is no solution at all. All they can do is write a ticket AFTER the load limitation has been violated and AFTER the damage has been done. Walmart can build all the suburban sprawl, soul-sucking junk shops they want. But they damn well are not going to endanger me and my community and push off all the infrastructure upgrades on to my tax dollars. Any remotely responsible actor in the community would recognize the issue and be willing to shift the 6 mil from the 380 agreement to take care of the bridge. Thus, I do not need to do anything to make Walmart look evil. They handle that quite well for themselves.

or the trucks can just drive on Heights.

How do you know this is the "most important infrastructure upgrade needed". Are you just making things up again? I think a simple visible sign that states "No Loads over 40,000 lbs" would be the "sane" solution.

You know that 18 wheelers drive on this bridge already... yet you drive it twice a day... your already endangering yourself. You should, like the trucks will, take Heights, its safer. As Red previously stated.... next complaint.

[samagon]

The obvious answer is that no business that needs big trucks should be allowed to have a business anywhere near this bridge.

[s3mh]

You still seem unable to separate Ainbinder from Walmart....Walmart is doing nothing other than leasing space....Ainbinder is the entity that all of your rage should be directed towards....Walmart apparently is doing nothing more than leasing some space from someone...If the space is not adequate its not Walmarts responsibility to make it so, its the lessors job.

Wrong. Walmart bought the land. They will not lease from anyone. Ainbinder owns and will lease the pads, but not the Walmart. Walmart is the one that needs all the semis. So, they are the appropriate target of criticism.

[s3mh]

or the trucks can just drive on Heights.

How do you know this is the "most important infrastructure upgrade needed". Are you just making things up again? I think a simple visible sign that states "No Loads over 40,000 lbs" would be the "sane" solution.

You know that 18 wheelers drive on this bridge already... yet you drive it twice a day... your already endangering yourself. You should, like the trucks will, take Heights, its safer. As Red previously stated.... next complaint.

I drove over the bridge next to two full school buses this morning. And again, if you are naive enough to think that a sign and a cop is a better way to prevent a school bus full of kids from plunging into the bayou than to do the responsible thing and upgrade the bridge to handle the load that will inevitably end up on it, that is your problem. Five of the community organizations in the Heights (excluding RUDH) all demanded an upgrade to that bridge. It is the only way to ensure that the bridge will be safe.

[s3mh]

The obvious answer is that no business that needs big trucks should be allowed to have a business anywhere near this bridge.

No, the obvious answer is that the no. 1 fortune 500 company should have enough cash to make the necessary infrastructure upgrades needed to accomodate their business.

[TheNiche]

No, the obvious answer is that the no. 1 fortune 500 company should have enough cash to make the necessary infrastructure upgrades needed to accomodate their business.

Yes, and that is why Wal-Mart, their suppliers, their customers, their owners, and their employees all pay taxes.

[RedScare]

If the bridge is substandard, then it is the City's responsibility to upgrade it. Walmart will soon be paying more than their fair share of taxes that can go toward upgrading the bridge if you convince the City to put it in front of other infrastructure projects. They have no further obligation than to pay their taxes. We don't force you to pay to repave your street. Walmart cannot be forced to upgrade a bridge, especially when there is a suitable alternative 200 feet away. But then, we all know that you and RUDH are not interested in the bridge, only in trying to backdoor attack Walmart. It will not work, but as always, it is amusing to watch you contort yourself in an effort to make this Walmart's fault.