Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[TheNiche]

If the premise is that our local government is like Baskin Robbins' 31 Flavors of Nincompoop, I happen to agree. But what does any of this have to do with Wal-Mart?

[JJxvi]

All this blame for the developer (and really, mainly for the developers anchor tenant) over this bridge...Yale is a city of houston designated major thoroughfare. This is not a case of a developer building on an idadequate site on some podunk road that needs to be updated, its a case of the city/state/whoever not maintaining its designated major routes adequately enough to handle their purpose.

Edited October 15, 2012 by JJxvi

[Leonard]

JJxi - you are absolutely right. It is the fault of the city and TxDOT. Why did they let this bridge get to this point?

But to suggest that Walmart has no interest in this bridge - except to want it to look prettier - is a little naive to say the least. I'm sure they are concerned about when and how long Yale will be closed. The smaller retailers in the development are probably even more concerned. And the developers must be concerned about unleased space - would you want to lease there now?

By the way, Walmart isn't a tenant, they own their property and developed it themselves.

[samagon]

It's not wrong to question how the government is spending tax money and how the government is or isn't maintaining infrastructure. It's not wrong to question why TxDOT and the City let the bridge get into this state with 4 more years before construction even starts - even with out of cycle funding obtained.

The City is going to have to repair the bridge if it is to remain open for the next 4 years before it is torn down. That's more tax dollars spent on this bridge.

If they don't know why this happened, they can't prevent it from happening over and over.

It is not wrong to question why the bridge is in the current state. It's pretty reprehensible that a bridge on a major thoroughfare that has been used for decades by really heavy commercial vehicles can only support a single smart car.

It is wrong though to insinuate that Walmart is at any type of fault here.

Edited October 15, 2012 by samagon

[s3mh]

If the premise is that our local government is like Baskin Robbins' 31 Flavors of Nincompoop, I happen to agree. But what does any of this have to do with Wal-Mart?

It is their 18 wheeler traffic that is the reason this all came to light in the first place. West End residents did not want Walmart's 18 wheeler traffic cutting through their neighborhood and raised the issue to the City at the big public meeting when the news of the Walmart first broke. The City responded (assumedly with input from Walmart as Walmart was a participant in the public meeting) that Walmart's 18 wheelers would take Yale St.--problem solved. But then people found out that the bridge was load limited and could not handle 18 wheelers. The response to that from the City and Walmart was complete silence. Then, people looked at the underside of the bridge and saw that the bridge was in bad shape. TxDOT inspects the bridge and twice lowers the load limits down to 3k per axel. Now, the bridge could be closed any day if an inspection reveals further degradation. The City is scrambling to come up with temporary repairs, and it won't be until 2016 that the bridge gets replaced to be able to accomodate Walmart's 18 wheelers.

In the meantime, Walmart is the direct beneficiary of 6 mil in public funds to pay for the infrastructure needed to get roads, drainage, and jogging trails upgraded for the development. The premises of providing tax payer money to the benefit of the richest retailer in the world is that it would benefit the community by taking care of needed infrastructure upgrades before the development opened. The agreement could have easily been modified to make the bridge the subject of the agreement and have the developer pay for the remainder of the upgrades that could not be funded in the 380 agreement (as every developer has had to do prior to Mayor Parker handing out 380 agreements like they were campaign flyers). That would have gotten bridge construction done by now and minimized the burden on the community, including Walmart and the rest of the tenants. But this never happened. There was never any mention of even trying to do it. Walmart and the developer just took what they could get from the community and have offered nothing to help get the bridge fixed so Walmart's 18 wheelers will have clear access to the development. The City primarly gets the blame. But, Walmart and the developer do not get a free pass. They could have stepped up and helped taken care of this problem, but did not.

[RedScare]

It is not Walmart's responsibility to rebuild Houston's bridges, no matter how hard some anti-Walmart protester bangs on his keyboard. And, as a taxpayer, I have no interest in paying to rebuild a bridge that TxDOT is obligated to rebuild. The trucks can use Heights until the bridge is rebuilt. They can also use Washington and come north on Yale. This is only a problem to those with limited mental capacity.

However, if you promise to jump off of said rebuilt bridge, I may reconsider my stance.

[Leonard]

Suggesting that someone commit suicide is reprehensible.

[TheNiche]

Suggesting that someone commit suicide is reprehensible.

Oh, go cry me a river and drown in it. Hyperbole is only a rhetorical device, nothing more.

I ask again, what does this bridge have to do with the Wal-Mart?

Edited October 15, 2012 by TheNiche

[Leonard]

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me.

If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me.

If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me.

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it.

[TheNiche]

It is their 18 wheeler traffic that is the reason this all came to light in the first place. West End residents did not want Walmart's 18 wheeler traffic cutting through their neighborhood and raised the issue to the City at the big public meeting when the news of the Walmart first broke. The City responded (assumedly with input from Walmart as Walmart was a participant in the public meeting) that Walmart's 18 wheelers would take Yale St.--problem solved. But then people found out that the bridge was load limited and could not handle 18 wheelers. The response to that from the City and Walmart was complete silence. Then, people looked at the underside of the bridge and saw that the bridge was in bad shape. TxDOT inspects the bridge and twice lowers the load limits down to 3k per axel. Now, the bridge could be closed any day if an inspection reveals further degradation. The City is scrambling to come up with temporary repairs, and it won't be until 2016 that the bridge gets replaced to be able to accomodate Walmart's 18 wheelers.

I don't care how it was discovered that the bridge was in poor shape. There are probably lots of bridges in poor condition that Wal-Mart trucks pass over thousands of times per day throughout the country, but that we just don't know about because there hasn't been some sort of unrelated controversy nearby. Wal-Mart is not responsible for ensuring that government infrastructure is up to snuff. That's the government's job.

Thankfully, there are alternatives.

In the meantime, Walmart is the direct beneficiary of 6 mil in public funds to pay for the infrastructure needed to get roads, drainage, and jogging trails upgraded for the development. The premises of providing tax payer money to the benefit of the richest retailer in the world is that it would benefit the community by taking care of needed infrastructure upgrades before the development opened. The agreement could have easily been modified to make the bridge the subject of the agreement and have the developer pay for the remainder of the upgrades that could not be funded in the 380 agreement (as every developer has had to do prior to Mayor Parker handing out 380 agreements like they were campaign flyers). That would have gotten bridge construction done by now and minimized the burden on the community, including Walmart and the rest of the tenants. But this never happened. There was never any mention of even trying to do it. Walmart and the developer just took what they could get from the community and have offered nothing to help get the bridge fixed so Walmart's 18 wheelers will have clear access to the development. The City primarly gets the blame. But, Walmart and the developer do not get a free pass. They could have stepped up and helped taken care of this problem, but did not.

IIRC, the direct beneficiary of the 380 Agreement was Ainbinder. Wal-Mart was not a party to the 380 Agreement. It was therefore an indirect beneficiary; however, whatever economic benefits were generated would have been captured in the sale price of the land as Ainbinder transferred it to Wal-Mart.

The agreement might have covered the bridge, but as Red points out, that would've been grossly irresponsible on the part of the City of Houston.

I'm sure that Ainbinder, Wal-Mart, the neighborhoods, and the City would all have preferred that the bridge get re-built concurrent with the construction of the feeder roads and prior to the completion of the development...but oh well, that just sucks. So it's up to TXDoT. You should send them letters imploring them to replace the bridge sooner than later. But I don't see how it involves Wal-Mart or how it might be particularly controversial.

[TheNiche]

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me. Cosmetic upgrades often make sense, perhaps even if they are only temporary. (In the long run, everything is temporary.) It appears from the agreement between the City and Ainbinder--not Walmart--that the City did retain the right to shift funds to some project other than balusters if they had wanted to. They didn't. I tend to agree that that was a mistake on their part, but that was the consequence of poor administration of their agreement rather than that the agreement itself was bad.

If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me. Good. I am glad that it's fine with you.

If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me. Pot meet kettle.

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it. Fantastic. Please do so in a thread that is directly related to the news that you are sharing.

[kylejack]

By the way, Walmart isn't a tenant, they own their property and developed it themselves.

I thought Ainbinder owns it.

[samagon]

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it.

Hopefully, you post it in the appropriate place.

Traffic and Transportation is probably the appropriate place for news of interest relating to the bridge.

Since the bridge only has a cursory relation to Walmart, in that it would be the most direct route for their 18 wheelers to drive, this really isn't a great place for it.

Hell, this thread should probably be pushed off the bridge and drowned (hyperbole, of course) since it's purpose is pretty much done, I mean, Walmart isn't technically open yet, but it's what, 10 days away?

Point is, confusing the state of the bridge with Walmart really isn't accomplishing anything.

[Leonard]

Here is some news:

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=2703

"Walmart sets opening date, promises no trucks on Yale St. Bridge"

[TheNiche]

I thought Ainbinder owns it.

Ainbinder did own it and was the master developer. They have since sold a 15.9-acre parcel to Wal-Mart.

[samagon]

Here is some news:

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=2703

"Walmart sets opening date, promises no trucks on Yale St. Bridge"

this is very relevant news, it's good to see that walmart has acknowledged and pledged to stay away from the yale bridge. I doubt that this will be enough for some (s3mh is being stared at).

I do have at least one idea for a bridge specific post title...

"Yale Bridge to invade White Oak Bayou"

[fwki]

How about "Uptight in the Heights Chapter 6: The Yale Street Bridge Saga"

[Leonard]

Pretty sure that Walmart bought the land prior to development, maybe even prior to the 380.

[TheNiche]

Pretty sure that Walmart bought the land prior to development, maybe even prior to the 380.

The 380 Agreement, signed and dated Sept. 28th, 2010, cited the following:

"Whereas, Developer owns or has contracted to purchase certain tracts of land totalling approximately 23 acres...as depicted on the map...for the purpose of developing a multi-tenant commercial/retail development..."

The deed conveyed to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust and was recorded on October 19th, 2010.

Wal-Mart would have had the land under contract at the time that the agreement was made, however would have made the contract contingent on the seller fulfilling a variety of commitments. That the seller was able to do so created value for the buyer and would have been built into the contracted purchase price of the site.

[RedScare]

Walmart's purchase predates both the development and the 380. However, the development's design anticipated the 16 acres that contains the Walmart. Likewise, the 380 was designed knowing the Walmart would be nearby...for whatever that's worth. Certainly, Walmart was coming with or without the Ainbinder development, and with or without the 380. Walmart stands on its own. It doesn't need surrounding retail or infrastructure to succeed. If anything, the 380 was done to support the surrounding small businesses, not the Walmart.

[Leonard]

Niche, thanks for the info.

Gosh, I wonder was any of the stuff in the 380 in the seller's commitments to walmart?

[s3mh]

It is not Walmart's responsibility to rebuild Houston's bridges, no matter how hard some anti-Walmart protester bangs on his keyboard. And, as a taxpayer, I have no interest in paying to rebuild a bridge that TxDOT is obligated to rebuild. The trucks can use Heights until the bridge is rebuilt. They can also use Washington and come north on Yale. This is only a problem to those with limited mental capacity.

However, if you promise to jump off of said rebuilt bridge, I may reconsider my stance.

18 Wheelers do not fit under the rail bridge. It is only 13' 7". Standard 18 wheelers are 13' 6". One good bump. The turn from Heights to Koehler is impossible for an 18 wheeler without having traffic stop on all lanes of Height SB to let the rig swing out wide and to have everyone on Koehler EB get out of the way so the rig can swing wide around the reverse curve. I have seen it done. It is not something you want to have happen during rush, much less normal traffic conditions.

The City has to spend big dollars to upgrade the bridge to get it to 2016. Those are tax dollars completely wasted compared to having the bridge replaced now out of 380 funds. You can sling your childish insults all day but cannot change the fact that this is a monumental waste of tax dollars that did not have to happen.

Walmart isn't obligated to build bridges, but they sure as hell shouldn't be getting the benefit of 6 mil in infrastructure upgrades, leaving the community to deal with a massive traffic jam when the bridge is first repaired and then replaced. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot praise the 380 agreement for providing infrastructure that the developer would have built on its own dime and then throw up your hands when the 380 dollars come up way short of the infrastructure upgrades that were really needed.

[RedScare]

[s3mh]

Certainly, Walmart was coming with or without the Ainbinder development, and with or without the 380. Walmart stands on its own. It doesn't need surrounding retail or infrastructure to succeed. If anything, the 380 was done to support the surrounding small businesses, not the Walmart.

Completely wrong. Walmart has an agreement with the developer to do all of the 380 improvements as part of the sale of the property. Walmart would never pay huge dollars to buy land without getting the surrounding infrastructure upgraded. And the idea that the 380 agreement was done to support the surrounding small businesses instead of Walmart is just hilarious. I do not think that a Walmart PR flack would have the gaul to come up with garbage like that. Walmart's building and parking lot are the vast majority of the acreage of the Ainbinder development. Walmart's traffic and 18 wheelers are the vast majority of the traffic from the Ainbinder development. But, you think the City and Ainbinder sat down and thought "gee, what can we do in the 380 agreement for the small businesses (i.e. national franchises and corporations like Walmart, Verizon, Chase, Chipotle, etc.) that will be the tenants?" That is rich.

[samagon]

Walmart isn't obligated to build bridges.

Can I add this to my signature line?

[fwki]

....leaving the community to deal with a massive traffic jam...

Ya killin' me man! O wait, I'm sorry, hyperbole, right? You really meant "leaving the community to choose one of the other six routes" which would have been ok ten years ago when most of us were stoned, but now we are The Houston Heights, Neighborhood Extraordinaire, Preserver of Pine Sticks and Voice of the People and we want our damned eighth bridge fixed NOW.....and by a French company, with fancy metal like the Statue of Liberty, yeah, and those ballbuster things, and trees on it, big trees, damnit.

[JJxvi]

As I mentioned earlier, there are constantly 18 wheelers blocking lanes on Yale at other locations. A truck making a turn for a few minutes on Koehler is just you searching for anything bad you can think of to spew some crap about this WalMart development. I dont see you picketing Pappas Restaurants, which is probably the area's major offender. You would have to live a charmed life to suddenly have "trucks" thrust on you at this point and only because of this WalMart.

[RedScare]

Completely wrong. Walmart has an agreement with the developer to do all of the 380 improvements as part of the sale of the property. Walmart would never pay huge dollars to buy land without getting the surrounding infrastructure upgraded. And the idea that the 380 agreement was done to support the surrounding small businesses instead of Walmart is just hilarious. I do not think that a Walmart PR flack would have the gaul to come up with garbage like that. Walmart's building and parking lot are the vast majority of the acreage of the Ainbinder development. Walmart's traffic and 18 wheelers are the vast majority of the traffic from the Ainbinder development. But, you think the City and Ainbinder sat down and thought "gee, what can we do in the 380 agreement for the small businesses (i.e. national franchises and corporations like Walmart, Verizon, Chase, Chipotle, etc.) that will be the tenants?" That is rich.

Well, regardless, it is done. What'cha gonna do now? Hmmmm?

All of your carping and beeching has not stopped Walmart, has not stopped Ainbinder, has not stopped the 380, has not gotten a new bridge in less than 4 years, and has not turned anyone against the new retail on Yale. So, really, what'cha gon do?

Oh, and you have no idea what Walmart would do.

Edited October 15, 2012 by RedScare

[Marksmu]

Load enforcement police truck at the bridge of death again this morning

[fwki]

RUDH: Raising money for the CoH one ticket at a time. Using their 5 year estimate, 20 tickets day, $200 per ticket, $4,000 per day, $1.4 million per year.....wow, $7 million clawback of the 380 funds right out of our Heightstonian tail pipes.