Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[TheNiche]

wow. I can think of a lot of nice names that start with D that describe this guy.

And here are another three officers of the organization that I have identified by utilizing information and documents that are a matter of public record. It seems that they also enjoy lifestyles that are inconsistent with their organization's stated objectives.

Nicholas Urbano, Director

4221 Kohler Street, Houston, Texas 77007

It seems that Mr. Urbano is the first individual listed on the registration documents for RUDH, which are a matter of public record.

I was able to find evidence of Mr. Urbano's business associations by way of the Texas Secretary of State's SOSDirect database, and was initially tempted to post that information. After all, it is public record. ...but that would be without tact. Never let it said that TheNiche is without tact.

Also of interest is that RUDH's Certificate of Formation describes its purposes as follows: "This organization is 501c4 community association devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Huoston Heights and West End neighborhoods by representing the community before local government and educating the public about the potential impact of real estate developments in the community." I'm curious as to how Mr. Urbano's ugly new townhome fits into the scheme of this organization!

Eileen T. Crowley-Reed, Director

1315 Corlandt St., Houston, TX 77008

According to public record (SOS Direct), she started several companies at her place of residence (one at a time), then shut them down several years later. Information about them, including her contact information is all a matter of public record.

This individual purchased her home when it was brand spankin' new. Thankfully, (although she may be shut off from the world by iron fences and gates) it isn't fugly like her fellow activists' domiciles. All the same, there's no shortage of older homes that needed TLC in her neighborhood. She has done nothing in her personal life that would advance the organization's cause and I fail to see why she merits being appointed a director.

Anne G. Baumgardner, Director

507 Highland Street, Houston, TX 77009

This one also showed up in the public record (SOS Direct). Hers is the least aesthetically despicable house in my opinion, but it was still built in the 90's. It is hardly historic. Prior to living there, she and her husband lived at 1012 Bayland Street in a home remodeled by the previous owner prior to sale. It's amazing that not a single (known) member of an organization dedicated to preserving the neighborhood is known to have actively preserved anything. They're all talk, no sweat.

[Marksmu]

Its much easier to just tell people how to live rather than do so yourself....this comes as no surprise to me. I find that most people who push an agenda do so for financial or political reasons, but seldom practice what they preach....just look at Al Gore, or Michelle Obama...its just too inconvenient to practice what you preach! If you can just force others to change then you don't have too!

[Texasota]

Yes, Michelle Obama is SUCH a hypocrite, with her advocacy of healthy lifestyles yet fantastic physique.

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible. If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset. Admittedly the anchor tenant is an enormous part of the problem, but the fact that they have shown zero interest in neighborhood concerns is an even bigger problem.

All that being said, the Koehler St. house is absolutely hideous. It is also probably incredibly poorly built, and will become a maintenance nightmare for Mr. Urbano in a few years.

[SilverJK]

Funny that they couldn't get someone living in a 1910-1925 original to be the face of the group... this makes me think they have even less support than i thought they did (which was still rather small)

[TheNiche]

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible.

Our agreement regarding the fugly townhomes owned by Urbano and Athans notwithstanding, Crowley-Reed and Baumgardner have not done justice to RUDH's mission of preserving the neighborhood by buying and occupying homes that were built in the 90's. By purchasing the homes that they live in (which were not threatened with demolition or decay), they had foregone an opportunity to preserve and protect the genuine article. How many hundreds of grand old homes have been demolished since their puchases?

Is, "Preserve the 90's!" really so compelling a rallying cry?

If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset.

Since you're speaking to the thought processes of delusional NIMBY hypocrites whom I cannot begin to understand or sympathize with, clarification is necessary. What do you think "urbanism" means in their fairy world?

[Texasota]

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Texasota

[TheNiche]

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Density. A more intensively developed site is going to create more traffic. They might counter that a mix of uses could mitigate the traffic, and that's true to a certain extent. But how many retail businesses survive on a captive audience of a few hundred on-site residents? If office space were included in such a plan, that would be a total blowout where traffic is concerned. There's nothing quite to produce a twice-daily surge of traffic during the most congestion-prone hours like office space. Again, some people would no doubt make use of their feet. But if the ratio of residents and those employed on-site that drive versus persons that would walk or take transit is, say, 4:1 such as it is in the Galleria area, then density adds drivers faster than you add walkers. Density (without Manhattan-like transit) brings more traffic. It is an inescapable fact, one that I think they're aware of.

Orienting buildings toward the street. Surely you don't mean Yale? Half of the frontage along Yale is below-grade; that's why the site plan has buildings right up against Yale but facing away from it. People couldn't get there from here. Ya wanna fight about it!? Besides, this is the kind of thing that goes well aesthetically along with density. (A big box store facing the street is monolithic, at least as unappealing as a parking lot hidden by landscaping.) ...but density brings icky traffic. So that's out.

Heights bike trail. As a consequence of this project, it is being extended south of I-10, and extra-wide sidewalks and traffic lights will be installed to manage traffic. It'll be a whole lot safer for cyclists to get around than it had been previously, not to mention that with additional retail, cyclists will have more places close by to cycle to.

But honestly, I think that you nailed it. They'd be fine with density, they don't really care about traffic, they pretend not to realize what all is getting redone with the 380 Agreement, and they probably don't even care about it being a shopping center. (Did they organize against Target? Have they filed suit against Kroger yet?) They just care about the retail space being operated as a Wal-Mart. And that's just snobby ridiculousness.

[RedScare]

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Why would Heights residents favor density so close to the Heights? They've been passing ill-advised ordinances limiting density for years, and now you WANT density? Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

[J008]

And here are another three officers of the organization that I have identified by utilizing information and documents that are a matter of public record. It seems that they also enjoy lifestyles that are inconsistent with their organization's stated objectives.

I feel it is a bit creepy to list people's addresses whom you don't know to make some point about hypocrisy.

I guess the next step is to go dig through their trash tomorrow (since they probably leave their trash on a public street) and see if there are any starbucks cups or receipts from big box stores.

[TheNiche]

I feel it is a bit creepy to list people's addresses whom you don't know to make some point about hypocrisy.

I guess the next step is to go dig through their trash tomorrow (since they probably leave their trash on a public street) and see if there are any starbucks cups or receipts from big box stores.

My point was that people on this forum should contact RUDH members and inform them as to how and why they are hypocrites. Another poster suggested that picketing their homes might be appropriate.

Shortly thereafter, RUDH got an attorney to try to censor this forum of public information about persons active in the public realm. My suggestion that people should exercise their first amendment rights to free speech, directed at activists whose contact information is a matter of public record, was construed as a threat.

That's silly, of course, but one good turn deserves another, and so that is what motivated me to research the organization's leadership more thoroughly. It was only then that I discovered this pattern of hypocrisy among RUDH's leadership, ill-fitting with RUDH's stated goals.

And FYI, I was able to find out much more information about the members. However...I don't feel the need to disclose information about their family, their employment history, their failed business ventures, etc., and I'm even doing them the favor of keeping their (easily researched) telephone numbers off of HAIF. This is because I have tact. If our roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that they would be so kind.

[JJxvi]

But honestly, I think that you nailed it. They'd be fine with density, they don't really care about traffic, they pretend not to realize what all is getting redone with the 380 Agreement, and they probably don't even care about it being a shopping center. (Did they organize against Target? Have they filed suit against Kroger yet?) They just care about the retail space being operated as a Wal-Mart. And that's just snobby ridiculousness.

I don't like what you are trying to imply. The following is stated fairly clearly on RUDH's http://stopheightswalmart.org web page.

Isn’t this really just an effort by your group to keep WalMart out of your neighborhood?

No.

What do you have to say now?

[Marksmu]

Yes, Michelle Obama is SUCH a hypocrite, with her advocacy of healthy lifestyles yet fantastic physique.

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction.

Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible. If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset. Admittedly the anchor tenant is an enormous part of the problem, but the fact that they have shown zero interest in neighborhood concerns is an even bigger problem.

All that being said, the Koehler St. house is absolutely hideous. It is also probably incredibly poorly built, and will become a maintenance nightmare for Mr. Urbano in a few years.

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down.

As to RUDH - they are anti Walmart snobs - they are not actually some group of taxpayers concerned about how our tax dollars are spent - they are anti-heights walmart snobs. They are pulling at any loose string they can to stop the Walmart. They dont care for Kroger much either so the Kroger will get some attention - but this whole thing would not ever have existed if it had been an HEB as they wanted.

[samagon]

I don't like what you are trying to imply. The following is stated fairly clearly on RUDH's http://stopheightswalmart.org web page.

What do you have to say now?

you don't have to like it.

the mission statement on the RUDH website states:

We are a community organization devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Heights and West End neighborhoods in Houston.

it is quite clear through the research done by TheNiche that they are not at all consistent in their application of preservation, specifically in their own choice of living accommodations which do not fall within the mission statement, and more generally on their lack of consistency in taking their action to other developers in the area that don't fit within the character, traditions and appearance of the heights, and west end neighborhood.

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

If our roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that they would be so kind.

How would you ever know?

[J008]

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down.

True. If only we had the guy who said that deficits don't matter then we'd finally end this hypocrisy.

T

[samagon]

How would you ever know?

They're willing to engage in a lawsuit to serve their selfish ends that will result in more taxpayer dollars being spent than they are purporting to try and save.

TheNiche is not making some off the wall baseless statement in assuming they would do the same thing as he did, he's basing it off their current and previous actions.

[s3mh]

They're willing to engage in a lawsuit to serve their selfish ends that will result in more taxpayer dollars being spent than they are purporting to try and save.

TheNiche is not making some off the wall baseless statement in assuming they would do the same thing as he did, he's basing it off their current and previous actions.

It doesn't cost over 6 mil to defend a lawsuit. And my point is that he would never know whether RUDH would make the same personal attack against him because no one knows who he is.

[samagon]

It doesn't cost over 6 mil to defend a lawsuit. And my point is that he would never know whether RUDH would make the same personal attack against him because no one knows who he is.

how do you know how much money the city will have to spend to defend this? regardless of cost, it is still taxpayer dollars that are used to defend this that are caused by this group. if it only costs a dollar, that's more than they should have to spend on this.

to your second statement, your intellect is truly dizzying, the fact is that it really is irrelevant. the fact is the members of iRUDH have a website dedicated to stopping one specific company from developing one specific parcel of land under the guise of preservation, and they are not stopping before they waste some of my tax dollars to further their selfish cause.

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[barracuda]

Michelle is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Traveling on Tax pay dollars repeatedly, often times on separate flights from Barack to the same destination only hours apart....she tells us to eat healthy and does not, she tells us to care about the environment and does not, Barack says he and his family care about the deficits spending and then they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history - the list of her hypocrisies is not hard to find with this First family. They are living the high life on our dollar. Also if her body is your idea of a fantastic physique - then I think the standard for fantastic has really fallen.....way way down. As to RUDH - they are anti Walmart snobs - they are not actually some group of taxpayers concerned about how our tax dollars are spent - they are anti-heights walmart snobs. They are pulling at any loose string they can to stop the Walmart. They dont care for Kroger much either so the Kroger will get some attention - but this whole thing would not ever have existed if it had been an HEB as they wanted.

Your claim about vacation was widely refuted back in August. After 31 months in office, Obama had taken 61 vacation days, compared to 180 days for Bush and 112 days for Reagan at the same point in their presidencies. http://www.cbsnews.c...n20093801.shtml

I know facts won't change some people's opinions, but anyway, I'm not sure what attacking Michelle and the president have to do with the Heights Walmart...

[J008]

how do you know how much money the city will have to spend to defend this? regardless of cost, it is still taxpayer dollars that are used to defend this that are caused by this group. if it only costs a dollar, that's more than they should have to spend on this.

to your second statement, your intellect is truly dizzying, the fact is that it really is irrelevant. the fact is the members of iRUDH have a website dedicated to stopping one specific company from developing one specific parcel of land under the guise of preservation, and they are not stopping before they waste some of my tax dollars to further their selfish cause.

The city doesn't have to defend it. They can spend as much or as little as they want (or as you allow them).

[samagon]

The city doesn't have to defend it. They can spend as much or as little as they want (or as you allow them).

iRUDH didn't have to sue the city.

how far back do you want to go on this?

the fact is, they did sue, and the city will defend. it's a fairly reasonable reaction by the city to the action of iRUDH.

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[HoustonMidtown]

they take more tax payer funded vacations and campaign stops than any other president in history, wasting more government money than any president in history

Do you have a source for this because I don't believe it is true..?

EDIT: Never mind, I didn't see Barracuda's response before I asked this....

Edited November 9, 2011 by HoustonMidtown

[Marksmu]

Your claim about vacation was widely refuted back in August. After 31 months in office, Obama had taken 61 vacation days, compared to 180 days for Bush and 112 days for Reagan at the same point in their presidencies. http://www.cbsnews.c...n20093801.shtml

I know facts won't change some people's opinions, but anyway, I'm not sure what attacking Michelle and the president have to do with the Heights Walmart...

Because more than half of his vacations he stops off for some token meeting with someone so he can lay the dime on the taxpayers and its not "vacation" its official business.. Michelle Obama is even worse than he is...her "official" trip to Spain cost taxpayers a fortune.

What the Obamas and RUDH have in common is their dishonest hypocritical approach at getting their way. They both have no shame at all in saying one thing and doing another. RUDH does not want WalMart - all of their arguments and lawsuits are aimed at one goal stopping Walmart. Fortunately - a pathetic group like RUDH can't stop Walmart - but they can cost the taxpayers more money with a lawsuit.

[J008]

but they can cost the taxpayers more money with a lawsuit.

Again, the city doesn't have to spend any money if that were of any concern.

Second, I thought Texas has a loser pays law that went in to effect this year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268436/loser-pays-texas-small-business-wins-stephen-demaura

If this applies then again their is none of your money at risk.

[TheNiche]

If our roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that they would be so kind.

How would you ever know?

Although I cannot read minds, my doubt that they would be so kind is sincere.

I mean, c'mon, seriously. These are community activists that desire anonymity. Those concepts are conflicted. They tried to coerce the owner of this forum into censoring me because I told the world how to communicate with them. They have not demonstrated rational judgement or even an internal consistentcy of their thought processes. Their expectations are not reasonable; they are not nice.

Hence...the sincerity of my doubt.

[samagon]

Again, the city doesn't have to spend any money if that were of any concern.

Second, I thought Texas has a loser pays law that went in to effect this year.

http://www.nationalr...stephen-demaura

If this applies then again their is none of your money at risk.

does that work with non-profits that (I would assume) will just go away once they have lost all possibility of stopping the walmart on Yale? as they have served absolutely no other purpose and they seem to not have any other causes they care about, you'd think they'd just dissolve when they've lost all they care about. what options within loser pays are given to go after members of a non-profit org that dissolves?

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[Marksmu]

does that work with non-profits that (I would assume) will just go away once they have lost all possibility of stopping the walmart on Yale? as they have served absolutely no other purpose and they seem to not have any other causes they care about, you'd think they'd just dissolve when they've lost all they care about. what options within loser pays are given to go after members of a non-profit org that dissolves?

I'm guessing a judge could require that they post a bond prior to initiating the suit - in circumstances like this where it is more likely than not that the suit is entirely frivolous I would think that the Judge may require a bond to not get summarily dismissed. But I do not know and I am not going to spend any time looking for the answer.

[TheNiche]

Again, the city doesn't have to spend any money if that were of any concern.

Second, I thought Texas has a loser pays law that went in to effect this year.

http://www.nationalr...stephen-demaura

If this applies then again their is none of your money at risk.

If the City ignores the suit, then there will be a default judgment against the City. The City pays reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, plus interest. The 380 Agreement gets nullified. The developer would then bring suit against the City because it acted in bad faith by approving the 380 and then not making any attempt to uphold their part of the bargain. It might also be construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. If the City rolls over again, then the developer also obtains a default judgement against the City so as to make them whole again...plus attorney's fees, court costs, and/or interest. If the City defends the case...it'll probably lose anyway but will spend lots and lots more money in order to lose.

If the City does not want to become entangled in litigation, its best policy is to be judicial in the application of 380 Agreements. Some of them are just ridiculous. And for the 380 Agreements that it has already executed, it should act in good faith to execute those agreements and to defend them from entities like RUDH. Rolling over on a specious lawsuit only invites more specious lawsuits...and more attorney's fees, court costs, and/or interest.

EDIT: Of course...the parties to the suit are a non-profit and a government entity. Standing is all screwy. Lots of things are weird about this. So...

***DISCLAIMER: I'm not an attorney. I'm probably wrong! Do not do anything based on what I say...ever."

Edited November 9, 2011 by TheNiche

[samagon]

Although I cannot read minds, my doubt that they would be so kind is sincere.

I mean, c'mon, seriously. These are community activists that desire anonymity. Those concepts are conflicted. They tried to coerce the owner of this forum into censoring me because I told the world how to communicate with them. They have not demonstrated rational judgement or even an internal consistentcy of their thought processes. Their expectations are not reasonable; they are not nice.

Hence...the sincerity of my doubt.

wait, so you aren't saying they would do, you are saying what you think they would do??! Great Scott!!

wait again, so in order for these people (I am really trying to refraining from calling them douches) to ask for your censure, they have to be reading this.

wait again again, so they are reading what I am writing right now.

wait wait again again, they are doing this all in anonymity.

I wonder if they are members of the site? I wonder if they are engaged in this discussion? I wonder if they are, why don't they reveal themselves?

I love a good mystery!!! who could it be??!!!!

Edited November 9, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

Although I cannot read minds, my doubt that they would be so kind is sincere.

I mean, c'mon, seriously. These are community activists that desire anonymity. Those concepts are conflicted. They tried to coerce the owner of this forum into censoring me because I told the world how to communicate with them. They have not demonstrated rational judgement or even an internal consistentcy of their thought processes. Their expectations are not reasonable; they are not nice.

Hence...the sincerity of my doubt.

You did not tell people how to communicate with RUDH. RUDH has a website, facebook page, email address and even have public meetings. If people want to communicate with RUDH, there are ample opportunities. What you did was tell people how to contact certain individuals who have been active with RUDH in one way or another at their personal residences. If you had a problem with Mayor Parker, would it be appropriate to go to her house? Has anyone who is against RUDH gone to Ainbinder's house? In a neighborhood that has had a recent wave of break in robberies, do you really think that it is appropriate for people to be knocking on doors of private residences to discuss whether someone's selection of a home to live makes them a hypocrite? What you are really trying to do is harrass and intimidate people who you do not agree with by putting their personal information on the internet.

And there is no anonymity for the people that are involved with RUDH. They get quoted individually in the news all the time and have even been on camera. But that does not mean that they are fair game to have their personal information posted and have their personal lives attacked. That is just dirty pool and internet trolling. And you know it.

And my point about "how would you know" was simply pointing out the obvious irony (or cowardice) of making childish criticisms about people's personal lives from behind the anonymity of an internet avatar. You will never personally know whether people who support RUDH would do the same to you because you will always be hiding behind your computer. Whether they are hypocrites or on the side of all things good and true, the people whose personal information you have published at least have the guts (admittedly more than I probably will ever have) to start an organization to take on very, very powerful interests in our community. You can rail all day on the internet about why you think a Walmart is just what West End residents need to boost their property values and how the Heights will be so much better with a Walmart nearby. But, going after people personally while hiding behind an internet avatar is totally out of line. Of course, you are not dumb and have obviously done this so you can make yourself the center of this discussion as it is clear that not much of substance was being said about the lawsuit. So, at least you have succeeded on that front.