Stop Heights Walmart!

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/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=8397633

 

“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/houston-texas/article/Kroger-deal-on-hold-amid-questions-about-food-2227074.php

 

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!]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/City-to-offer-rebates-to-another-new-store-near-2225281.php

Read the lawsuit. Click on this image to link to the full PDF.

18-wheelers can’t safely turn on a standard neighborhood street. The COH wants to redirect Walmart 18-wheelers onto the Koehler extension, a new street that will connect Heights Blvd. to Yale. THE KOEHLER EXTENSION HAS A REVERSE CURVE. Even if trucks are able to swing out wide enough to enter the street, the reverse curve will require east bound traffic on Koehler to back up for 50-100m to accommodate the truck coming in wide. BAD IDEAS = UNSAFE STREETS.