Thursday is a big day for the Ashby Highrise:
Developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton, of Buckhead Investment Partners, will appear Thursday before the General Appeals Board, a city panel that hears appeals of permit denials. They will ask for approval of a 23-story building at 1717 Bissonnet with more than 200 apartments, a restaurant, a spa, retail space and offices, which the city repeatedly said would worsen traffic congestion to unacceptable levels.
In August, the city approved modified plans that stripped out all of the commercial uses except the restaurant. The developers have not picked up the permit, however, and said Tuesday that they still want to build the original project.
What’s the difference between the plan approved by the city and the original design Buckhead is still pushing for?
***
In addition to a reduction in the number of residential units, the developers report the changes included:
elimination of a small retail store, a wellness spa as well as a handful of private offices. Also, a pedestrian plaza in front of the residences was replaced with a driveway.
“Removing these amenities completely contradicts‘ city officials’ statements that they want new development inside the Loop to create a ‘walkable Houston,’†Morgan said in a statement.
According to an analysis of the changes by the development’s neighborhood opponents, the newer design cuts a total of 15,000 sq. ft. of office and retail space from the original proposal, but more than doubles the amount of restaurant space — from 4,950 to 10,000 sq. ft. And 5,000 sq. ft. of the cuts were Buckhead’s own executive offices.
Meanwhile, leases for tenants in Maryland Manor — the apartment complex currently on the site — have been extended through August of next year.
- Ashby developers push for original plan [Houston Chronicle]
- Ashby developers’ appeal to restore mixed uses set Thursday [River Oaks Examiner]
- 1717 Bissonnet Timeline of Salient Events [Buckhead Investment Partners]
- Town Hall Meeting presentation (PDF) [Stop Ashby Highrise]
- Ashby Highrise coverage [Swamplot]
Rendering of pedestrian plaza in original design: Buckhead Investment Partners
Go, Ashby, Go!!!
I’m glad they will use planning types’ own language against them to push the project forward.
It would be interesting to sit in on the Appeals Board Meeting. I would like to see if the questions asked of the developer seem like they were fed through the Mayor’s offices from the nearby neighbors (who line Mayor White’s pockets with campaign donations).
Well they do have a point but then they always did. Their statement indicates they are planning a lawsuit. Where do we send checks to their legal fund?
I would like to see if the questions asked of the developer seem like they were fed through the Mayor’s offices from the nearby neighbors (who line Mayor White’s pockets with campaign donations).
_________________________
More than likely they were questions provided to the mayor by the two “co-chairs” who of course are partners with the law firm that brought us Enron. Of course since the renaissance of Southampton occurred when the realtors discovered the Enron people were rich but stupid and doubled the prices overnight.
There really is this attitude in Southampton and Boulevard Oaks that the law, and ordinance or lack of ordinance, does not apply to them. Not surprising when you realize what fueled, and funded, the attitude.
Just a hunch. TOTAL SPECULATION on my part. But I wonder if Buckhead is ramping up for a lawsuit. They have a Plan B that was approved, though with less income generating features. The rejected (or soon to be after appeal) Plan A had more income generating features. The difference between the two would be the quantifiable damages.
Without an approved plan, it would be hard to prove what the economic differential (damages) would be. And unless Buckhead made every attempt, including an appeal, to permit Plan A, they’d have no case.
Die, Ashby, Die!
They should win any lawsuit along with damages. Here’s hoping for justice.
I wish they’d bulldoze a few blocks of southhampton houses for some extra retail. And a mixeduse breadth rivaling that of citycentre out west.
Rise High Ashby!
I live about 200 feet from the Ashby highrise site, close enough that if the building fell over it would literally land on my house. And I agree with the developers that a thriving, walkable Houston is a great idea. If the building were constructed with minimal parking and the tenants committed to walking, biking, or taking transit, maybe with some zipcars at the bottom, I would be a huge supporter. That’s what I already do, and I don’t want a bunch of new SUVs getting in the way of my thriving walkable city.
But if the developers really want to be a part of that culture, they should get in on Richmond while it’s still cheap before the University Line is built. If their intent is really just to have another car-centric strip mall except with condos on top, screw em. I bike past desolate hellholes like that all the time.
Sid,
Did you look at the elevations and the original plan? The retail isn’t car centric design at all. Also, the retail doesn’t get supported by the residents in the tower only. They get supported more by non-tower residents. Which is why mix-used projects can NEVER stand alone and work. They require outsiders to come in and spend money.
The building is being built with minimal parking for residents and limited parking for commercial. Not much different than the Post Midtown development.
Also, Richmond isn’t that cheap anymore. The new apartment complexes being built or just built were in the process before the final decision for the Richmond rail line. There was a time where there was a chance the line would run along US 59 and Westpark. These developer took a bet they would be right. Now the line is confirmed in the location. Land prices are going up. Developers are now waiting for METRO to condemn properties for the rail which open up land for new development.
I think this is a great idea but those West U yuppies wont give up…so I suggest that they move the entire project to Wash Ave, Midtown, or Eado or even Downtown…I think those areas would appreciate it more
“land prices are going up”
You’re kidding right? or are you talking asking prices (last time I checked comps don’t count unless closed), once again nothing is trading, absolutely nothing, tell me again about all those new projects getting ready to go vertical…NOT!
Cross,
They aren’t bargain basement prices, and they are pretty much leveled off. There are very few parcels along Richmond that want to sell anyway. The ones that want to sell are the ones that will drop in price.
Also, developers looking to buy are few and far between now.
I can say the same for Midtown. The price for land hasn’t really dropped (though it should).
The Ashby guys won’t move because they already own the land. It’s not like they can sell it for a profit now. Constructing their tower is really the only way for them to make a return on the investment. And the tower needs to be the original design and now the mutilated one they the city agreed too (which also destroys the pedestrian friendly portion in the front.
kjb, I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m interpreting (perhaps wrongly) that to be successful the building will have to draw folks from outlying areas to be successful. But the design has limited parking for those driving to it. Sounds like a recepie for overflow parking on the neighborhood’s residential streets.
I get the utopian idea of making a building inhospitable to autos with the hope it will encourage people to walk. But as a buisness owner, I’d want the greatest draw I can find. Making it a PITA for my customers would seem to be a bad idea if a more hospitable location exists in the same demog.
Matt Mystery (who I’m assuming is the commenter formerly known as “Matt”)- have we ever gotten down to the root of why you so obviously despise the people in the Southhampton and Boulevard Oaks neighbhorhood? I live in Boulevard Oaks and support the highrise, but it does not help your cause to constantly refer to the people in the neighborhood as (paraphrasing) ‘stupid,’ ‘rich,’ ‘above the law,’ etc. The residents have every right to pursue legal and administrative channels that are available to them.
Limited parking for customers is essentially the bare minimum they are allowed to provide. Bissonet is already street that allows on street parking in this area, so that won’t change.
If it was up to me, I would put a lot more in the building itself, but I’m not involved in the project.
The residential units will have the typical limited parking as most condo/apartment towers provide. Usually one or two spaces per unit and anything beyond that you have to purchase.
This project may get completely built but fail in the end financially. Whether this project succeeds or fails is not the issue for me. This issue is that the developer is not allowed to do with their land as they please. They met all the requirements, then the rules changed after and the approval pulled. Sounds like the base of a court case to me.
kjb434, don’t get me wrong, I would love to see the Ashby rise and hope they have the $’s to make it happen, but no banks will lend on this product type anywhere in the US even with huge equity and full recourse. Lets hope they have an alternate strategy.
I agree with you there Cross.
If I remember right (and this is about 2 years ago), the investment group had the construction financing in place. I don’t know the specifics of where the money was coming from. Of course, most banks would have pulled this back and denied because the change in the real estate environment. With that being said, some more well seasoned apartment developers have moved forward with the collapse anyway. Camden’s Superblock and Finger’s Whole Foods/Apparments and retail complex on Dallas @ Waugh. Then there is the whole Regent Square thing that appears to still be moving forward. The TIRZ is moving forward with utility improvements that must occur before they begin construction of the project.
have we ever gotten down to the root of why you so obviously despise the people in the Southhampton and Boulevard Oaks neighbhorhood? I live in Boulevard Oaks and support the highrise, but it does not help your cause to constantly refer to the people in the neighborhood as (paraphrasing) ’stupid,’ ‘rich,’ ‘above the law,’ etc. The residents have every right to pursue legal and administrative channels that are available to them.
__________________
It’s the attitude. And the way they used questionable legal and administrative channels. Strings were pulled. That’s something everyone in this city took note of. Being flip aside, it’s the attitude.
Having money doesn’t make you special. Taking the attitude that it does makes you pretentious and in some cases obnoxious.
I live about 200 feet from the Ashby highrise site, close enough that if the building fell over it would literally land on my house.
__________________
And when you bought your house it never occured to you that a hirise might go up on that corner? Given the fact that there have always been apartment complexes on the east side of Ashby, most people should have known it was unrestricted land. Meaning unrestricted. Appparently you people really do not understand what that word means.
This project may get completely built but fail in the end financially.
_________________
I think your crystal ball is a little cloudy and one of the advantages of 1717 Bissonnet that few if any other hirises except for the Huntingdon have is that you can walk out the door and take a nice walk in nice tree-lined neighborhood as well as access to parks and museums and cultural events as well as sporting events that don’t require a car. And that will something quite a few will look at and will probably be what “closes the sale.”
I believe Buckhead is a private equity company meaning they may have the funding in place through partners rather than banks. They may also have quite a war chest for a lawsuit through those partners. And it does appear they are planning to file a lawsuit.
The deep pockets of some in Southampton may have met even deeper pockets. And even nastier attorneys than theirs.
Matt,
I think you’re right about their financing setup. I don’t think banks ever came into the situation. As long as all the investor are still in place, they won’t have a problem going to construction.
Also, materials prices have dropped some. I know concrete has dropped. The city of Houston and Harris County road projects are being bid well below estimates due to the lack of work and more competitive bidding. Tax payers win in that situation.
Matt, Private equity groups utilize significant leverage/debt, ever heard of KKR? I do not know of a single real estate project of this scale built with 100% equity, the numbers just doesn’t work that way, the risk/return will be a total loser. I still hope they have a plan though.
I do not know of a single real estate project of this scale built with 100% equity, the numbers just doesn’t work that way, the risk/return will be a total loser.
_________________
If your premise had any real basis beyond assumption, all construction in this country would have stopped a long time ago. Just because some projects have failed doesn’t mean they all will. Most expect the units at the new condominium towers on San Felipe to sell quickly by the way. Despite the horrendous traffic in the area.
There really is this attitude in Southampton and Boulevard Oaks that the law, and ordinance or lack of ordinance, does not apply to them. Not surprising when you realize what fueled, and funded, the attitude.
—————————
You have no way of knowing what our attitude is. I’ve lived in SH for 20+ years, talk to neighbors daily. Do you? Please stop this relentless attack on SH residents. Whatever valid points you make (and you have a few) get lost in your ATTITUDE.
And when you bought your house it never occured to you that a hirise might go up on that corner? Given the fact that there have always been apartment complexes on the east side of Ashby, most people should have known it was unrestricted land. Meaning unrestricted. Appparently you people really do not understand what that word means.
———————————–
He probably figured that one day someone may tear it down and build an even bigger complex. Maybe 3-5 stories. Maybe denser. But he also prolly figured no one in their right mind would attempt to put a 23 story highrise up on a 2 lane road.
People understand what words mean; they also understand common sense. Which you left behind many posts back. Your insulting attitude (“Appparently you people really do not understand”) is far more condescending than the residents of SH you continually condemn.
Everybody who so much as thinks about this project winds up with egg on the face.
You have no way of knowing what our attitude is. I’ve lived in SH for 20+ years, talk to neighbors daily. Do you? Please stop this relentless attack on SH residents. Whatever valid points you make (and you have a few) get lost in your ATTITUDE.
___________________
The presidents of both the Southampton and Boulevard Oaks HOAs have supported this “by any means” attempt to stop the hirise. They speak for you. If they don’t, then you need to replace them. Until you do, well, they speak for you.
He probably figured that one day someone may tear it down and build an even bigger complex. Maybe 3-5 stories. Maybe denser. But he also prolly figured no one in their right mind would attempt to put a 23 story highrise up on a 2 lane road.
_____________________
Okay let’s assume they put up a 5 story complex with an underground garage. There are 67 units at Maryland Manor. Some are townhouse units. Lets say by reconfiguring
the layout, they could get 40 units per floor. 40 x 5 = 200. So the “traffic impact” would not be much different. And the traffic impact was what mattered, right? Wrong. It was the only thing left for Bill White to use to stop the hirise. He couldn’t create an oridance to stop so he attempted to use an existing ordinance that would only be applied to 1717 Bissonnet. That right there is a pretty good basis for a lawsuit.
Some don’t want a hirise. Nothing in the ordinances in this city says you can restrict land use by whim. No matter how rich or important you are.
If the people pulling strings to stop 1717 Bissonnet had pulled strings to stop Medical Clinic of Houston quite a few would have not had the reaction they have had. “Nothing you can do” the mayor replied along with Anne Clutterbuck with regard to Medical Clinic of Houston. Then one of the two attorneys who “co-chair” the Stop Ashby “committee” is on television talking about how he called the mayor and the mayor called him back. No surprise there given the fact the attorney is with a powerful law firm. This time the mayor said he would stop it. And Anne Clutterbuck said she would stop it. And lots of other politicans said they would stop it. Why? To curry favor with a powerful law firm.
The mayor said he would stop it by legal means. And then he attempted to create the legal means. Which stinks as much now as it did then. It just reeks of some believing they are above the law. That the law somehow doesn’t apply to them.
Which takes us back to Enron. And the law firm. And the attitude.
I have always suspected that they cut a deal with candidate White to make sure it didn’thappen on his watch and now they will proceed. Too much $ involved to let simple-minded homeowners have a say.
I have always suspected that they cut a deal with candidate White to make sure it didn’t happen on his watch and now they will proceed. Too much $ involved to let simple-minded homeowners have a say.
________________________________
Are you saying the developers bought the mayor off? If so, you’re the one who’s simple-minded. Or lost-minded.
As for the homeowners, well, they’re not really the voice behind this. But they are the chorus. The voice, if not slick, is good at pulling strings. Been there, done that with the voice. Not really surprised by them. But am surprised by the chorus.
“We are rich and therefore important people and so we shall decide.”
Everything you read from the beginning of this just screams that attitude. It sent quite a few very rich and very important people in River Oaks and Tanglewood and Memorial into hysterical laughter over the pretentiousness of it all. They could have stopped so many other hirises. They instead respected the will of the voters. They voiced their displeasure, in one case they boycotted the developer, but at no point did they even think about pulling strings at City Hall. Not once. And trust me some of them could have. And you would have seen whatever was needed to be passed by city council passed before anyone knew it had been passed. And there would have been NO hirise in their neighborhood. And they find this amusing. But also a little irritating. Who are these people who think they’re so important that the entire city should change its ways, and its ordinances, just to please them?
Looks more like the courts will decide. And the chorus will probably end up paying once the voice figures out a way to call legal fees a mandatory assessment.
Disgusting lot. The voice and the chorus.
So, exactly who is Buckhead going to sue?
Jeez between kjb34 the know it all on every topic on this board and matt mystery the proverbial plebian who attacks the bourgeousie, this entire thread is somewhat pointless. Do you two ever tire of your own voice? Haven’t we stablished a thousand times that kjb34 supports unrestricted land use at all costs and matt mystery always has an axe to grind with anyone and everyone?
and matt mystery always has an axe to grind with anyone and everyone?
______________
Not anyone and everyone. Just the pretentious. They’re so, well, pretentious.
The presidents of both the Southampton and Boulevard Oaks HOAs have supported this “by any means†attempt to stop the hirise. They speak for you. If they don’t, then you need to replace them. Until you do, well, they speak for you.
———————————–
That makes about as much sense as saying since Obama is pres, everything he says represents you, until YOU vote him out.
*****
I tried to add a modicum of common sense into this thread. But your relentless attack on us rich people is making the caviar in my stomach upset. I’m outa here . . .
That makes about as much sense as saying since Obama is pres, everything he says represents you, until YOU vote him out.
____________________
Well you know what? To the outside world, that is true. Obama does represent us. All of us.
And your HOA represents you. Which you will probably find out when the HOAs are named in the lawsuit.
And your HOA represents you. Which you will probably find out when the HOAs are named in the lawsuit.
———————–
HA! Finally gotcha. Southampton is represented by a civic club, not an HOA. Civic clubs are not legal voices for residents like HOAs are. HUGE difference.
*************
(Civic clubs can’t asses dues, only “request” them. Can’t file liens, can’t foreclose, can’t yada yada yada.)
——
OK, now I’m really outa here. No more posts. It’s time for my morning massage, before I meet my boyfriends at Nieman’s.
sure are a bunch of “facts” being thrown around when in reality, they’re nothing more than opinions.
Matt,
You either dismissed or ignored my point, large real estate projects are not developed with 100% equity, there is always a debt component, and my comment is not an assumption it is real estate 101. I challenge you to name one private project for sale or lease over $10M developed with 100% equity. You can write a book for all I care but in the end you will still be wrong. You should change your name again to Matt the know it all.
You either dismissed or ignored my point, large real estate projects are not developed with 100% equity, there is always a debt component, and my comment is not an assumption it is real estate 101.
_______________
I didn’t dismiss or ignore it. There are other means of funding besides banks. And some of them indeed are what you call 100% equity in that no banks are involved. Joint ventures for one. Pension funds another. Harold Farb loved GE. Or more accurately loved their pension funds.
Oh and of course the REITS. The real estate trusts. Private investors. Camden has done quite well with them.
I would submit that Houston’s no-zoning status only works as long as there is a social contract that developers adhere to that keeps them from going too far and causing a wave of objections. Appears to me that no other high-rise proposal has been viewed as so inappropriate as this one. Word that I hear is that any experienced high-rise developer in town passed — or would have — on this site. Every other high-rise in town is built on at least a 4-lane major thoroughfare, which is what existing homeowners expect. Only two guys who build apartment complexes in the suburbs thought it was a good idea, and then way overpaid for the land (many developers looked at the offering price and passed…). What has happened here is how “the law” often changes, expands, etc. Those viewed by the majority as “bad actors” push the boundaries and then government changes to rein them in. Maybe that offends the property-rights absolutists, they don’t like it, etc. But there’s nothing new here — just look at our country’s 200+ year history.
And this Matt Mystery guy using the word pretentious against other people is just hilarious. He’s so self-righteous, certain that he’s 100% right about all things, and insulting to all others as corrupt, stupid, etc. Hmm, that’s the definition of…
Matt, GE is a lender and provides debt and equity, their equity investment is typically limited to 20% of the captial stack, Do you know the difference between debt and equity? REITS also use significant debt, both secured and unsecured, the more you type the more you reveal a lack of understanding basic real estate finance, I’m just saying
JJMB–very well said.
Excuse me but you all keep saying the banks won’t loan. Maybe they won’t. Others might. My point simply was banks aren’t the only source of funding. You keep saying they don’t have the financing. How do you know they don’t? Wishful thinking?
As for this “other developers” who “passed on this” maybe the other developers didn’t realize they could put a hirise on that corner.
As for “bad actors” talk to the people in Tanglewood and Briargrove about the “bad actors” adding to the gridlock on San Felipe. In addition to so many others who have done the same thing. Traffic impace studies? I doubt the city has ever required one for anything on San Felipe.
As for this “quiet 2 lane residential street” you all keep claiming Bissonnet is, well, let’s see. One driveway at the Huntingdon is on Avalon which really is a “quiet 2 land residential street” except when someone throws a party at The Huntingdon. Then there’s Lamar Tower that the only entrance/exit is on a one-way two lane northbound section of a four lane street that requires a U-turn from the two lane southbound entering or exiting Lamar Tower. So technically it is a two-way street that you can only enter going north and then exit going north. Then there’s The Greenway. Then there’s two condo towers on San Felipe about to go up. Nightmare gridlock every which way. There are lots of issues to be raised. Only hirise any of the issues have been raised with regard to is 1717 Bissonnet.
All these arguments you all make are what don’t make sense. But then you all are obviously part of the Stop Ashby gang.
The review board voted 3-2 to reject the original plans. Sounds like 2 of the board members have some common sense.
Next we go to city council. That should be interesting. Maybe they can force the vote before the election. Which probably would change the results of the election.
So some may keep their seats on city council. Until the next election. When the voters remember how much they cost the city along with Bill White for the lawsuit.
And yes you all are pretentious. Obnoxiously so. You are not special. You do not deserve special privileges. You just think you do.
Someone in a comment in the Houston Chronicle mentioned the fact that some of you are tearing down wonderful old homes in Southampton and Boulevard Oaks, some in fact violating setbacks I might add, just to build pretentious McMansions to give the impression of pretentiousness.
They used the word arrogant but that implies you have something to be pretentious about. You don’t.
You have ruined the allure of what was once one of the nicest neighborhoods in Houston. I read one of the earlier “we are so special” comments in the Houston Chronicle talking about how you have done so much for Houston. Donating your time and your money. Sitting on boards. Doing this and doing that. As if that makes you special. As if that gives you special privileges. I suspect when the market gets better there will be a number of for sale signs to go with the tacky yellow signs.
Matt missed the point as usual. And makes very poor arguments once again.
I would argue to the undecided that it isn’t just the traffic patterns that make the Ashby/Biss site inappropriate. Yes, other high-rises exist where there are traffic problems and perhaps those should have been addressed when built. But I submit that what makes this different is that all those other high-rises were built on 4 or 6 lane major roads WHERE MOST PEOPLE EXPECT high-rises to go. All of the regular houses within eyesight of them knew that was a risk in the area. High-rises get built on major roads. So the neighbors didn’t rise up with huge objections (actually, 2 of his 3 examples don’t have any houses nearby — Lamar Towers and the Greenway places, so you all can see how Matt makes a very poor argument). I know some River Oaks residents objected to the Huntingdon, but in the end most recognized that there was already a 20-year old 12-14 story office building next door, Kirby was 6 lanes, etc. There is nothing like that at Ashby/Biss.
Contrary to what Matt says, the “other developers” I referenced are not ignorant. (Matt seems to think that everyone but him is ignorant.) Several told me or friends of mine in essence “at the offering price, the only thing that could be profitable on that parcel was a high-rise, but it would meet with huge local resistance, it isn’t consistent with how we developers try to play within the unwritten rules that go along with the no-zoning environment we benfit from”. Ask someone how long that parcel was for sale. No other developer thought it reasonable to risk trying to put up a high-rise.
And, frankly, it seems from my unscientific polling that any more than 10% of the people in town who actually make a living as large-scale developers (as opposed to “do anything you want” theorists who aren’t actually involved in the business) actually support the Ashby developers or want them to succeed.
I am pro-big-developer. I think most of them do a great job and convey great benefits to the City. And I don’t think hardly any of them support Ashby high-rise either. It’s mostly unfettered-property-rights-are-all-that-matters theorists. There’s some support for that view, but not much.
Someone in a comment in the Houston Chronicle mentioned the fact that some of you are tearing down wonderful old homes in Southampton and Boulevard Oaks, some in fact violating setbacks I might add, just to build pretentious McMansions to give the impression of pretentiousness.
————————————
The chron.com commenters are perhaps the only commenters that are more bitter than Matt Mystery. Matt, as I said in my previous post, you undermine any rational commentary you may have on the situation by throwing in overreaching accusations such as all Southhampton/Boulevard Oaks residents are “pretentious” (building homes to give the impression of pretentiousness- whatever that means), “stupid,” “rich,” “ruined…the neighborhood,” etc. Of course, let’s not forget that also you bring every argument back to Enron, as though the residents of Southhampton/Boulevard Oaks caused the collapse of the company.
Well you all need to make up your mind. Is it traffic or is it inappropriateness or something else? Still seems just like a bunch of pretentious people wanting to be pretentious and self-important by telling city hall what to do and telling the rest of us who don’t like their doing so that we’re just bitter or envious. Again, pretentious people with nothing to be pretentious except perhaps their propensity for being corrupt.
Matt,
You need stop with the pretentious argument. It’s not helping your case. There are plenty of good reasons to support the Ashby project besides ridiculing the neighborhood. I don’t agree with the Stop Ashby group, but they can rabble rouse all they want. If they used political influence, that’s wrong, but all that is speculation.
What we can point to that is wrong is the way the city dealt with the project’s submittals. If this would happen to anything my clients submit, I would be royally pissed too. In fact, it has happened. We had to hold many meetings with the city engineer and have them defend their position with lawyers there. They couldn’t and we got our projects approved. Of course this was all part of a suburban project. There wasn’t a vocal outcry. It was just a city council member who didn’t like it.
I don’t need to make a case. The homeowners have made it for me.
Among other things, you have city councilmember who lied early on in this and then had “No Thru Trucks” signs posted on Ashby. And from what I understand, did so without the proper authority. She just ordered someone to put them up and up they went. Again, pretentious people with a propensity for corruption.
Matt needs to meet Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It won’t impact me in the least whether the Ashby high rise is built or not. Matt just assumes I am a rich, pretentious, corrupt, stupid Boulevard Oaks resident. What do the rest of you think? I think I just like looking at two sides of an issue and figuring out which I prefer. So I checked out this posting. There were some interesting points made, but overall there seemed to be more heat than light.
I tend to side with those who have the better arguments and the more reasonable advocates. If Matt = Typical Ashby High-Rise Proponent, then it looks like I belong on the anti- side of things.
You want light? Read the Batson Report.
Pop quiz: How many pages are all of the Batson Reports? And how much did it cost?
For others: Batson was the lawyer who investigated and reported on who the Enron estate should sue, and he was paid out of the bankruptcy estate (so that money didn’t go to creditors, employees, shareholders).
Would you believe Batson’s firm was paid $100 million and generated 4,000 pages? That’s a cool $25,000 per page. In about 18 months, and then they resigned. And what was done with the reports? Many would say “nothing at all.” All the recoveries were due to other law firms pursuing bankers, lawyers, etc.
Lots of bad stuff in Enron. But also bad stuff in how the whole Batson thing went down. Doesn’t excuse the initial bad stuff — not at all. But I’m just saying … do you really want to bring Batson into this?
Well gee if someone accused me of legal malpractice I would probably sue them.
You have to wonder if something with regard to that little “detail” of the report was what that US Congressman was waving in the air on national television when he called Joe Dilg, the managing partner of V&E, a liar.
Joe Dilg just smiled. So did Kay Bailey Hutchison as a matter of fact. I bet there were quite a few in Southampton who smiled as well. The Fastows probably smiled.
The report is there. Some people will not deal with V&E or Andrews & Kurth as a result of it. Some won’t donate to organizations that have members of either firm on the boards.
The attitude. Above the law. The law doesn’t apply to us. Same attitude as to be found in this.