RUDH members continue to see dumptrucks and other over-weight vehicles crossing this bridge and heading to construction sites on a daily basis. If YOU see a truck, snap a cell photo, get a company name or license plate #, call 311 to report it and emailinfo@RUDH.org. MORE YALE ST. BRIDGE INFO coming soon!
PRESS ADVISORY: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 30, 2011
On November 23, 2011, the City of Houston quietly released a CitizensNet public notice noting that TxDOT had drastically lowered the load limit for the Yale Street bridge. The bridge’s original load limit designation of 40,000lbs and 21,000lbs for tandem axle vehicles was estimated for a bridge with no plans on record. TxDOT located the plans, performed a load rating study and cut the load limit to 8,000lbs per single axle and 10,000lbs for tandem axle vehicles. Most bridges in rural settings, that experience low traffic volumes, exceed these load limits. The new Yale Street bridge load limits prohibit nearly every type of commercial truck, from semi-tractor trailer, combination trucks, buses, delivery trucks to large panel vans, from safely passing over the bridge.
The City claims the bridge is safe and will continue to provide service over the long term for traffic within the load ratings. The City states that signage will restrict and redirect trucks to Heights Boulevard south of I-10 with enforcement provided by HPD’s Truck Enforcement Unit. The public continues to witness construction vehicles breaking the law—every day—by crossing the bridge with loads serving the Walmart and Orr developments.
The re-routing of truck traffic to Heights Boulevard will result in 18-wheelers attempting unsignalized turns—crossing a walking trail, bike lanes—into a difficult reverse curve at the new Koehler Street extension. The at-grade rail crossing will further impact congestion. To avoid chronic roadway conditions, and maintain delivery schedules, big-rigs will likely attempt illegal trips over the Yale Street bridge or down residential streets, breaking ‘No Thru Truck’ ordinances and creating critical conditions for public safety.
To the public’s knowledge, the City of Houston has performed no structural study for the bridge that considers the new projected traffic impacts reported in the Traffic Impact Analysis performed for Ainbinder by Kimley-Horn & Associates or those generated by the currently under construction Yale feeder roads. This analysis projects severe congestion from failing grade intersections 200ft, both North and South, of the Yale Street bridge’s deck.
To resolve concerns for school bus safety, on August 27, 2011, RUDH met with the Houston Independent School District’s Chief Operating Officer, Leo Bobadilla and Issa Dadoush, General Manager of Construction and Facility Services, to request that school buses no longer use the Yale Street bridge. HISD pro-actively responded by re-routing buses prior to school year commencing.
RUDH continues to lobby the City of Houston for a structural study that accounts for new, projected impacts and is concerned that resurfacing of the bridge could result in an increase in dead-weight on the deck and catastrophic failure similar to that which occurred in Minnesota. The public is contracted to reimburse Ainbinder $6,000,000 via tax relief to improve surface streets wrapping the Walmart development. None of these monies have been earmarked to structurally upgrade the antique bridge that is the main artery to the Walmart development.
State Representative Jessica Farrar stated in a letter dated April 15, 2011, “I have become increasingly worried about the possibility of trucks using the Yale Street bridge…If trucks are not allowed on this route, the issue becomes one of enforcement–specifically, whether or not any and all offenders will be caught. It will only take one fateful trip over the bridge to create catastrophe.”
The Mayor promised that …the $6M would ensure greater oversight and construction beyond “minimum standards”. In reality? Not even close. Example: Walmart’s 380 included $380,000 for drainage detention on this PRIVATE site. Walmart claims the site is already impermeable, so they’re not doing it. That looks just like a “minimum standard” to the public.
Why RUDH is filing this lawsuit?
In the lawsuit, RUDH alleges that the 380 Agreement with Ainbinder Heights LLC does not promote economic development, as required by the Texas Local Government Code.
RUDH alleges that the 380 Agreement with Ainbinder Heights LLC constitutes a $6 million tax reimbursement deal for a developer who has stated numerous times that the project would be built with or without this assistance. Mayor Parker and members of Council also stated that the development would have been built with or without public funds. Since that is the case, we allege that this agreement does NOT promote economic development.
RUDH also alleges that the 380 Agreement with Ainbinder Heights LLC violates the Texas Constitution.
The Texas Constitution allows municipalities to use these agreements under established programs, with criteria and standards which promote economic development. In the lawsuit, RUDH alleges that the City completely ignored its own standards and application procedures and simply gave the developer, Ainbinder Heights, LLC over six million dollars for infrastructure improvements needed to support a suburban style Walmart Supercenter development.
Why did you need to take legal action?
We have tried on countless occasions to work through these issues with the City and have found either resistance or non-responsiveness.
We believe that legal action is required because the City is spending money from future city budgets to subsidize developers who do not need these funds and thus, not promoting economic development. Tax revenues are scarce and should not be used to pad wealthy developers’ profit margins.
In addition, the way the City’s 380 program is currently being administered, the City is almost completely ignoring the standards and application process that they should be following in order to ensure fiscal responsibility and good public policy.
Isn’t this really just an effort by your group to keep WalMart out of your neighborhood?
No. This lawsuit is about the City’s alleged misuse of taxpayer funds to support developer profit making; if there is going to be an economic development program at the City of Houston, it should be administered by following the established standards and criteria, be transparent to the taxpayers and support economic growth in areas of the City that are underserved and where projects would otherwise not be built.
What is RUDH hoping to get out of this lawsuit?
If the Court agrees with our allegations, we are asking that this 380 Agreement be invalidated; if the City then wishes to persist in making this tax reimbursement, it must be done in a manner which conforms to City and State legal requirements and must be publicly presented to Council for a re-vote in the future.
“It smacks to me of a bit of corporate welfare,” Houston City Council Member Anne Clutterbuck said. [Due to consistent public pressure, the misuse of public funds via an unwarranted 380 Agreement is now being seen in a very different light.]
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/
“It has nothing to do particularly with a 380. They were going to build the Kroger. By use of the 380 it allows us to get some extra community benefit. We did not incentivize them in any way. They had the land. They came to us and said they’re going to build the Kroger.” [They were going to build it anyway. The jobs creation would happen anyway. The streets "necessary to serve" their development would need to be upgraded for their site to be viable. How is THAT a public expense that we need to refund? It's not.]
And let us not forget the $40K Kroger “donation” to currently eroding, historic Olivewood Cemetery. (A “donation” that will be fully refunded by taxpayers at a rate of 5.17%. That’s NOT a donation.) Consider Margott Williams, the President of ‘Descendents of Olivewood Inc.’ comments before City Council on Tuesday. “What is Kroger’s intention and their plans for the community because we are already getting erosion problems from White Oak and we have drainage problems from the community, the business neighbors.”
Kroger intends on grandfathering drainage – just like Walmart. So, flooding problems and erosion is now the public’s, and Olivewood’s, problem. How does that Renew Houston?
http://www.chron.com/news/
King described the improvements as “above and beyond” what would be required without the 380, but it is not clear how much more the city gets by agreeing to rebate to Kroger some of the property and sales taxes generated at the site over the next 13 years. [It's not clear because they haven...'t performed an Economic Impact Study. They can borrow RUDHs commissioned for Heights Walmart. It shows an oversaturated market and no new net tax revenue gains, just poaching from existing stores. So, the City will be reimbursing out of a limited amount of tax dollars, not new tax dollars. Future deficits on the horizon!]
© 2012 Stop Heights Walmart!
All Rights Reserved