Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[samagon]

I think even s3mh can't deny that Walmart helped draw attention to the crappy Yale street bridge. Had they chosen to locate themselves anywhere else, no one would have cared about the quality of that bridge. Think of all the lives Walmart helped save by deciding to locate there and starting the irrevocable chain of events that led to scrutinizing the safety of the bridge. 6 million is a very cheap price to pay for the lives Walmart has saved.

There's no amount of locally owned business, or chef driven restaurants that could have caused the scrutiny of the Yale street bridge.

I think we shouldn't even bother asking Walmart to pay the 380 back.

[s3mh]

I think even s3mh can't deny that Walmart helped draw attention to the crappy Yale street bridge. Had they chosen to locate themselves anywhere else, no one would have cared about the quality of that bridge. Think of all the lives Walmart helped save by deciding to locate there and starting the irrevocable chain of events that led to scrutinizing the safety of the bridge. 6 million is a very cheap price to pay for the lives Walmart has saved.

There's no amount of locally owned business, or chef driven restaurants that could have caused the scrutiny of the Yale street bridge.

I think we shouldn't even bother asking Walmart to pay the 380 back.

18 wheelers were never supposed to be on the bridge. It wasn't designed to handle loaded 18 wheelers and was never rated for them. It got down graded after a regularly scheduled inspection of the bridge. The attention opponents brought to the bridge had nothing to do with the scrutiny from regulators. TxDOT does not give a crap what a bunch of neighborhood anti-Walmart activists think.

Opponents did get all the neighborhood organizations together to put pressure on politicians to find funding to rebuild the bridge and make it safe for 18 wheeler traffic so Walmart's 18 wheelers would not have to snake around Heights Blvd and Koehler to make their deliveries. Walmart deserves about as much credit for getting the Yale St. bridge rebuilt as the Nazis should get for Picasso painting Guernica.

[RedScare]

I applaud Walmart's efforts to ensure the safety of our school children, even going so far as to purchase land at a premium over other retailers, and building a store, just to draw attention to the dangerous Yale Street bridge. We, including s3mh, owe Walmart a debt of gratitude for protecting his child, as well as stocking disposable diapers available for purchase 24 hours a day.

Oh, and Godwin's Law proven once again at post #2236.

Edited August 24, 2012 by RedScare

[fwki]

...At least there is a reasonable argument to be made that the stimulus spending actually did create jobs that would not have been created without it.....

But not by you.

Edited August 25, 2012 by fwki

[barracuda]

City spends $6 million creates 300 jobs, $20k per job, not bad.....compared to our current federal government sticking us for $400,000 per job.....http://finance.townh...,000/page/full/

The first line in the Chronicle article indicates 250 new jobs will be created, so it's really $24,000 per job.

The article you linked to is a little misleading. Out of the $787B stimulus package, $288B were tax cuts and $224B were to extend various benefits, and $275B was designated for job creation. Using the same CBO estimates of 1.4 million to 4 million "full time equivalent" jobs created by the stimulus, the job stimulus cost was more like $196,429 to $68,750 per job.

To make the comparison even more accurate, I'd want to know how many of those Walmart jobs will be full time, and whether these new associates will make a living wage so they can avoid relying on government entitlement programs for basic needs.

Edited August 25, 2012 by barracuda

[fwki]

I view government spending the way I view charity spending, and so I view taxes like I view donations. The closer to home those dollars are given and spent, the more efficient they are along with higher chances of having the desired impact. Also the source of the funds has more control over the use of the funds (as it should be) when closer to home. The reason for this is every time the money changes hands, some gets skimmed and intent gets redirected. For that reason I believe the federal government and federal programs are the least efficient at anything, and so barracuda's comparisons bear that out. The real issue to me is whether or not government should be in the job-creation business at all. Most politicians and certainly most bureaucrats know little about business and economy. Government does have a strong ability to destroy jobs and the economy as proven by the current jobs situation in the U.S. and everything in Europe.

Coming back to our Wal-mart, at least the city didn't scare them off, and I really hope that the new employees find themselves better off than they are now, because that's what counts, people and quality of life. And looking at the surrounding neighborhoods before and after and having many under-employed friends, I feel this whole project is a big success.....except for those damn trees, but I have plan for that....

[J008]

City spends $6 million creates 300 jobs, $20k per job, not bad.....compared to our current federal government sticking us for $400,000 per job.....http://finance.townh...,000/page/full/

Just a friendly reminder, that the funds used to build the interstate infrastructure necessary for this store were part of a federal stimulus program. Almost the same day they broke ground, this project was announced.

Add the 380. And now the state is going to fork over the money for a new bridge.

It's gotten help at literally every level.

(won't get into the Navy and military that defends the shipping lanes from both china and the mideast to get you your cheap goods).

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/heights-news/article/Stimulus-project-starting-up-in-area-1719073.php

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecoveryData/Pages/RecipientReportedDataMap.aspx?stateCode=TX

[fwki]

Yeah right I won't forget, the interstate highway and the Yale St bridge, all because of Wal-Mart. Now I am really thankful for that company enabling the infrastructure improvement. And they keep me safe from pirates too!

[TGM]

To make the comparison even more accurate, I'd want to know how many of those Walmart jobs will be full time, and whether these new associates will make a living wage so they can avoid relying on government entitlement programs for basic needs.

Ah, the old living wage argument. It's not about the wage, it's about how a person chooses to live.

[s3mh]

I

Coming back to our Wal-mart, at least the city didn't scare them off, and I really hope that the new employees find themselves better off than they are now, because that's what counts, people and quality of life. And looking at the surrounding neighborhoods before and after and having many under-employed friends, I feel this whole project is a big success.....except for those damn trees, but I have plan for that....

If it is such a great success, why does the government have to hand over incredibly scarce tax dollars to the richest retailer in the world? Walmart does not need a penny of government support to build their stores. Anyone who believes that they do is denying the blatant economic reality of Walmart's largess. Walmart can, and should, pay its own way if they want to put a store where the community has declared loudly that they are not welcome.

And the project is actually not looking to be such a great success. Looking at the washington heights website, they still have @31,500 sq ft of pad space that has not been leased, even though they have been looking for tenants for over two years. Not counting the Chase and Taco Cabana pads, they have not leased over 50% of the strip mall space with construction only a few weeks away from completion. This raises the question of whether the ad velorum taxes will be enough to pay off the 380 money. If not, the City is on the hook to pay cash with interest out of general funds. The City already got screwed on tax gifts to Landry's for the ballpark hotel (they did not meet promised employment numbers) and for the 380 given to the Pavillions. The City needs to stop playing real estate developer with taxpayer dollars. Houston grew into one of the largest cities in the US without 380 agreements. There is no need for them, other than to reward politically connected developers and leasing agents for their patronage.

[kylejack]

Ah, the old living wage argument. It's not about the wage, it's about how a person chooses to live.

And if you work for Walmart, you're probably going to be choosing to live without health insurance. Wage isn't everything, but it's definitely a factor.

[SilverJK]

maybe they are having a hard time leasing the strip mall space because they are looking for "chef-driven" restaurants. = ]

The rest is just your opinion and fabrications, per the usual.

[kylejack]

Coming back to our Wal-mart, at least the city didn't scare them off, and I really hope that the new employees find themselves better off than they are now, because that's what counts, people and quality of life. And looking at the surrounding neighborhoods before and after and having many under-employed friends, I feel this whole project is a big success.....except for those damn trees, but I have plan for that....

You're hoping your under-employed friends will realize their full potential by getting a job at Walmart? Welp.

[fwki]

If it is such a great success, why does the government have to hand over incredibly scarce tax dollars to the richest retailer in the world?

The tax dollars would not be scarce if municipalities had not entered into corrupt agreements with greedy unions. And the guv doesn't HAVE to hand those dollars over, they choose to, and if you don't like it you'd better move to Alaska or start voting Libertarian instead of whining.

...Walmart does not need a penny of government support to build their stores. Anyone who believes that they do is denying the blatant economic reality of Walmart's largess. Walmart can, and should, pay its own way if they want to put a store where the community has declared loudly that they are not welcome.

I believe you mean "a vocal minority of the community whined loudly that they are not welcome among the elite and self-important."

The City needs to stop playing real estate developer with taxpayer dollars. Houston grew into one of the largest cities in the US without 380 agreements. There is no need for them, other than to reward politically connected developers and leasing agents for their patronage.

As opposed to rewarding politically connected Public Service Employee Unions? At least Wal-mart and developers play it straight rather than using scare tactics like "it's for the kids" or "your houses will burn" and "crime will crawl into your underpants" if you don't pay us a king's ransom in retirement...and by the way if you don't pay us we will hold your city hostage.

[RedScare]

If it is such a great success, why does the government have to hand over incredibly scarce tax dollars to the richest retailer in the world? Walmart does not need a penny of government support to build their stores. Anyone who believes that they do is denying the blatant economic reality of Walmart's largess. Walmart can, and should, pay its own way if they want to put a store where the community has declared loudly that they are not welcome.

And the project is actually not looking to be such a great success. Looking at the washington heights website, they still have @31,500 sq ft of pad space that has not been leased, even though they have been looking for tenants for over two years. Not counting the Chase and Taco Cabana pads, they have not leased over 50% of the strip mall space with construction only a few weeks away from completion. This raises the question of whether the ad velorum taxes will be enough to pay off the 380 money. If not, the City is on the hook to pay cash with interest out of general funds. The City already got screwed on tax gifts to Landry's for the ballpark hotel (they did not meet promised employment numbers) and for the 380 given to the Pavillions. The City needs to stop playing real estate developer with taxpayer dollars. Houston grew into one of the largest cities in the US without 380 agreements. There is no need for them, other than to reward politically connected developers and leasing agents for their patronage.

I don't recall the city giving the richest retailer in the world a dime. The 380 was with Ainbinder. Walmart bought their land and built their store. Walmart increased the tax rolls with new construction. Walmart is a moneymaker for the city. Your gripe is with Ainbinder. This post just proves what we've been saying. You and RUDH aren't upset at 380s and infrastructure. You are mad at Walmart. Your anger is misplaced.

As for empty storefronts, you reveal that you know little about retail centers (or anything else). Take a look at the Target shopping center, and how long it took to kinda fill it up.

BTW, the city grew to the 4th largest city with aggressive annexation, a tool no longer available to them. Other tools for growth are needed. You've not shown yourself to be a proponent for growth on any topic you've posted on. If you are opposed to it, it is likely good for the city and its residents.

Edited August 28, 2012 by RedScare

[s3mh]

I don't recall the city giving the richest retailer in the world a dime. The 380 was with Ainbinder. Walmart bought their land and built their store. Walmart increased the tax rolls with new construction. Walmart is a moneymaker for the city. Your gripe is with Ainbinder. This post just proves what we've been saying. You and RUDH aren't upset at 380s and infrastructure. You are mad at Walmart. Your anger is misplaced.

As for empty storefronts, you reveal that you know little about retail centers (or anything else). Take a look at the Target shopping center, and how long it took to kinda fill it up.

BTW, the city grew to the 4th largest city with aggressive annexation, a tool no longer available to them. Other tools for growth are needed. You've not shown yourself to be a proponent for growth on any topic you've posted on. If you are opposed to it, it is likely good for the city and its residents.

Yeah, you are right. Developers never ever pass on their costs to purchasers/lessees. It just doesn't happen. Ainbinder never considered the 6 mil it was getting from the City when it negotiated its development deal with Walmart. You nailed that one. Too bad it is absolutely false.

You do not know crap about retail centers. The only reason this one is going forward without tenants lined up is because Ainbinder is going to own it and lease it. Most retail center developers build to sell and cannot sell (much less fund and start construction) without having a % pre-leased. 50% won't get that done. Of course, it is way easier to ride out some lean leasing interest when you get 6 mil from tax payers to build a development that everyone hates.

Annexation gave the City a marginal uptick in population numbers (people still flock to the burbs). Annexation had nothing to do with the rapid economic development that has taken place well inside the City in the Galleria area, Med Center, Downtown, Midtown, and Upper Kirby--all of which took place without a single 380 agreement.

[fwki]

....Of course, it is way easier to ride out some lean leasing interest when you get 6 mil from tax payers to build a development that everyone hates....

Will you stop speaking for the rest of us please? Alright already, we know you hate Wal-Mart, you don't even dispute Red's statement about your anger. You are on an island, face it and deal with it, alone.

[RedScare]

Yeah, you are right. Developers never ever pass on their costs to purchasers/lessees. It just doesn't happen. Ainbinder never considered the 6 mil it was getting from the City when it negotiated its development deal with Walmart. You nailed that one. Too bad it is absolutely false.

You do not know crap about retail centers. The only reason this one is going forward without tenants lined up is because Ainbinder is going to own it and lease it. Most retail center developers build to sell and cannot sell (much less fund and start construction) without having a % pre-leased. 50% won't get that done. Of course, it is way easier to ride out some lean leasing interest when you get 6 mil from tax payers to build a development that everyone hates.

Annexation gave the City a marginal uptick in population numbers (people still flock to the burbs). Annexation had nothing to do with the rapid economic development that has taken place well inside the City in the Galleria area, Med Center, Downtown, Midtown, and Upper Kirby--all of which took place without a single 380 agreement.

Let's see, developers pass COSTS onto purchasers. I can agree with that. But, you then claim the City GAVE Ainbiner $6 million. A gift is not a cost. It is a gift. You got it backwards.

Now, let's look at your retail center economics. You claim that "most" retail centers are built based on 50% occupancy. While knowing you are full of it, I'll concede the point, so that we can look at THIS project. In THIS project, Ainbinder purchased 23 acres of land for development. He then immediately sold 15 acres of it to Walmart, who outbid several other retailers for the parcel. So, Ainbinder has already made a killing on this investment. The rest of the retail is just gravy. If you had paid attention, you'd have known that.

But, then you make a silly statement to justify your 50% empty remark. You say we should ignore Chase and Taco Cabana. Why ignore them? Are they not paying rent? Of course they are. But, the only way to make your argument work is to ignore all of the revenue streams and focus one small part. The reality is that over 50% of the retail space is leased, IN ADDITION TO selling a huge parcel to Walmart. Considering that all of your other rants depict Ainbiner as a wealthy developer who doesn't need a 380, it is hilarious to watch you try to depict him as nearly bankrupt now.

[Leonard]

here's an article on the jogging trail to nowhere

http://www.chron.com/life/gray/article/Gray-A-place-to-display-art-cars-3810884.php

[RedScare]

here's an article on the jogging trail to nowhere

http://www.chron.com...ars-3810884.php

Looks more like an article about what negotiation can accomplish over obstructionism to me. The City should demand that RUDH pay for any changes.

[Leonard]

Why would RUDH pay for any changes to the jogging trail to nowhere?

[s3mh]

Let's see, developers pass COSTS onto purchasers. I can agree with that. But, you then claim the City GAVE Ainbiner $6 million. A gift is not a cost. It is a gift. You got it backwards.

Now, let's look at your retail center economics. You claim that "most" retail centers are built based on 50% occupancy. While knowing you are full of it, I'll concede the point, so that we can look at THIS project. In THIS project, Ainbinder purchased 23 acres of land for development. He then immediately sold 15 acres of it to Walmart, who outbid several other retailers for the parcel. So, Ainbinder has already made a killing on this investment. The rest of the retail is just gravy. If you had paid attention, you'd have known that.

But, then you make a silly statement to justify your 50% empty remark. You say we should ignore Chase and Taco Cabana. Why ignore them? Are they not paying rent? Of course they are. But, the only way to make your argument work is to ignore all of the revenue streams and focus one small part. The reality is that over 50% of the retail space is leased, IN ADDITION TO selling a huge parcel to Walmart. Considering that all of your other rants depict Ainbiner as a wealthy developer who doesn't need a 380, it is hilarious to watch you try to depict him as nearly bankrupt now.

But that is why we enjoy reading your posts. It is so easy to make a fool out of you.

You cannot be serious about the 6 mil. Had Ainbinder not received 6 mil for all the infrastructure upgrades, they would have made Walmart and their tenants pay for at least a substantial portion of it. why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you really think that developers eat all the construction costs? Maybe you should think twice before resorting to name calling when you cannot even fathom the simple business of how developers deal with their costs.

Retail gravy? I hope no one has ever relied on you to invest their money. No developer in the world would want to see their profits get eaten up by poor leasing returns. Ainbinder made a lot of money off of the sale of the land to Walmart. But that is also all of the money they will get from Walmart. If the retail pads do not lease well, the Walmart profit will be stuck in empty sq footage.

I never said Ainbinder was bankrupt. That is just another strawman argument made to avoid the real argument I am making. I clearly pointed out that the worst part of the recent 380 agreements by the City is that they have been bad bets. Landry failed to meet employment numbers and ended up doing a deal to blow up the old fire alarm building in exchange for tax debt foregiveness (which is probably prohibited by the Texas constitution--gov't cannot foregive tax debts). The Pavillions went bust thanks to an idiotic cavern design that no retailer/restaurant/bar in their right mind would want to have their business hidden in an urban gorge. And Ainbinder may have Walmart, but the rest of the development is limping along so far, especially in comparison to what the leasing agent claimed it would be. Ainbinder said he didn't need the money to develop the property. The money certainly has not yeilded any kind of great commercial success. So, why should the City be playing real estate developer? The answer is that they shouldn't. They make bad decisions based on political influence.

[RedScare]

You cannot be serious about the 6 mil. Had Ainbinder not received 6 mil for all the infrastructure upgrades, they would have made Walmart and their tenants pay for at least a substantial portion of it. why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because it is not true. If the City had not asked Ainbinder to finance city infrastructure improvements, Ainbinder would not have been obligated to make them. They are city streets. The City has to maintain and improve them, not the developer. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

As for passing on costs, the lease rates are not based on costs. They are based on what the market will bear. If Ainbinder has to eat some costs, his profits will be lower. If he doesn't, his profits are higher. If the costs are more than the market rates will cover, he doesn't do the project.

Don't quit your day job.

[HTX]

Yeah, you are right. Developers never ever pass on their costs to purchasers/lessees. It just doesn't happen. Ainbinder never considered the 6 mil it was getting from the City when it negotiated its development deal with Walmart. You nailed that one. Too bad it is absolutely false.

You do not know crap about retail centers. The only reason this one is going forward without tenants lined up is because Ainbinder is going to own it and lease it. Most retail center developers build to sell and cannot sell (much less fund and start construction) without having a % pre-leased. 50% won't get that done. Of course, it is way easier to ride out some lean leasing interest when you get 6 mil from tax payers to build a development that I hate..

Annexation gave the City a marginal uptick in population numbers (people still flock to the burbs). Annexation had nothing to do with the rapid economic development that has taken place well inside the City in the Galleria area, Med Center, Downtown, Midtown, and Upper Kirby--all of which took place without a single 380 agreement.

Fixed it for you.

[Angostura]

Because it is not true. If the City had not asked Ainbinder to finance city infrastructure improvements, Ainbinder would not have been obligated to make them. They are city streets. The City has to maintain and improve them, not the developer. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

The oft-repeated statement by Ainbinder that the development didn't need the 380 to proceed has been taken to mean that, had the city taken a harder line, the developer would have paid the $6M out of his own pocket. That's not what that statement means. Red is right that the development would have gone forward without many (any?) of the infrastructure improvements.

Some of these are of questionable value (the jogging trail to nowhere is a good example), but, absent the 380, they just wouldn't be a part of the development.

Three things bear pointing out:

1 - The developer does benefit from some of the infrastructure improvements (improved access, making area surrounding the development aesthetically better, etc.) without actually incurring any direct cost.

2 - The per-s.f. price of the land the city acquired for the Koehler St. extension probably exceeded the actual market value of that land.

3 - In the absence of a 380, without some of the street reconfiguration, the development may have had more issues with the TIA.

So, yes, the developer is better of with the 380 than without it, but probably not to the tune of $6M.

But, on the other side of the ledger, the city is probably better off with the 380 than without it. The area around the development looks a little nicer, traffic will flow a little better than it otherwise would, etc.

So, if you stipulate that the Walmart was going in with or without the 380 (which the critics of the 380 almost universally usually do), then I don't see a whole lot to get upset about.

[TGM]

So, if you stipulate that the Walmart was going in with or without the 380 (which the critics of the 380 almost universally usually do), then I don't see a whole lot to get upset about.

The 380 was the winner of the anti-Walmart straw poll, so they made that their primary issue.

What I don't understand is if all the critics buy "local" only why should would they care about a business that's more than a mile or two away?

Edited August 29, 2012 by TGM

[Leonard]

HTX - glad you hate the Walmart.

Angustora - Whether or not the road work is required can be debated all day (I think the traffic signal and turn lanes would be required), but even the biggest 380-lovers must admit that the development must connect to sewer and storm drainage. The 380 reimburses for these. The development would not have gone forward without connecting to the sewer system. Walmart is not allowed to flush their lo-flo urinals into the parking lot. Connecting to the sewer system is required, not optional.

The ROW for the Koehler extension is estimated at 58.08 a square foot, but the abandonment by COH of the alley is estimated at 15 a square foot. Both pieces of land run between Heights and Yale. Both are reimbursable under the 380. The City is supposed to reimburse what Ainbinder actually paid for the land, plus unknown and uncapped interest.

The $115K cosmetic work plus unknown and uncapped interest on the Yale Street Bridge is a complete waste. That bridge is now scheduled for demolition.

TGM - I don't think "buy local" means "less than a mile away."

[Marksmu]

You cannot be serious about the 6 mil. Had Ainbinder not received 6 mil for all the infrastructure upgrades, they would have made Walmart and their tenants pay for at least a substantial portion of it. why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you really think that developers eat all the construction costs? Maybe you should think twice before resorting to name calling when you cannot even fathom the simple business of how developers deal with their costs.

Retail gravy? I hope no one has ever relied on you to invest their money. No developer in the world would want to see their profits get eaten up by poor leasing returns. Ainbinder made a lot of money off of the sale of the land to Walmart. But that is also all of the money they will get from Walmart. If the retail pads do not lease well, the Walmart profit will be stuck in empty sq footage.

I never said Ainbinder was bankrupt. That is just another strawman argument made to avoid the real argument I am making. I clearly pointed out that the worst part of the recent 380 agreements by the City is that they have been bad bets. Landry failed to meet employment numbers and ended up doing a deal to blow up the old fire alarm building in exchange for tax debt foregiveness (which is probably prohibited by the Texas constitution--gov't cannot foregive tax debts). The Pavillions went bust thanks to an idiotic cavern design that no retailer/restaurant/bar in their right mind would want to have their business hidden in an urban gorge. And Ainbinder may have Walmart, but the rest of the development is limping along so far, especially in comparison to what the leasing agent claimed it would be. Ainbinder said he didn't need the money to develop the property. The money certainly has not yeilded any kind of great commercial success. So, why should the City be playing real estate developer? The answer is that they shouldn't. They make bad decisions based on political influence.

What you dont seem to understand is that business financing is much tighter than it used to be. Its much harder to secure financing on a business, especially retail, without a good traffic count. Many franchises require traffic counts exceed numbers to get a franchise. WalMart is not open yet and Yale was NOT previously a major thoroughfare that had I-10 access....add in the fact that they are about to close the bridge down completely to repair it, and you have a situation where a WalMart can survive based on it being a destination, but a smaller retailer or restaurant may not be able to survive. A mom & pop place is doomed to fail until the roads are repaired and Walmart drives up traffic counts.

This center will lease, and over time the tenants will get better and better...but until the Walmart opens, the traffic counts skyrocket, and the bridge is repaired this location is not really that desirable for anyone other than a large destination retailer like Walmart.....Your low occupancy rate argument does not take any of this into consideration. You are just cherry picking the low hanging fruit and using it as proof that you right.

The reality is that this center will fill up, it will be profitable. I'd love to own it. Its short term success will be low until all of the things that retail/restaurants look for align...Ainbinder is not nearly as short sighted as you...they see the big picture and that picture is full of dollar signs!

Edited August 29, 2012 by Marksmu

[Leonard]

Construction on the bridge isn't scheduled until late 2016. It will be closed for 12-18 months at that time, if the condition of the bridge does not require it to be closed sooner. It will be 2018 before the bridge is complete.

[fwki]

...Ainbinder is not nearly as short sighted as you...they see the big picture and that picture is fully of dollar signs!

I'm giddy as school girl over all this new stuff in the hood. I just walked Summer Street from Taylor to Stude and, wow, they are setting up for development back there to compete with the Wal-mart hub. Sure, sometimes I miss how it "used to be", but I get over it real quick when I recognize that Houston is the greatest city in the country for bootstrapping oneself into a few million dollars the old-fashioned way: hard work and smart risks. I love the people in this city who make lemonade out of jogging trails to nowhere, who take on challenges like WLN, who can raise millions in dumb money to transform White Oak or put God's Little Waiting Room on Stude & 14th. I may not agree with every project but I respect the people who pull it off. And I respect the people who get up off their butts to protest or change plans to something that appeals to them. But at the end of the day, it's about confrontation to get to negotiation not confrontation for it's own sake, that's how it's done around here. And if you are still holding on to your anger now, well, you're just being an old fart. At some point you gotta give it up for the people who make this city great.

Edited August 29, 2012 by fwki