AtticaFlinch

Doubtless, the link to this poll has been crossposted on the anti-Walmart-in-the-Heights Facebook fan club page. All this righteous indignation coming to HAIF to express itself will be good for editor. Hopefully anybody who has something burning within themselves that needs to be said on the subject will read the 600+ posts already written on the topic first before posting.

God. Do I have to hold your hand? Is it really necessary to use an emoticon to ensure people understand sarcasm? How about this then: [/sarcasm]? That's still considered clever, right? Of course it's been shelved! Now the city doesn't have to pay a dime for the upgrades since Walmart and Ainbinder are on the hook for it. Now we can use the money for better infrastructure upgrades like light rail or HOV lanes on 288. I don't know how the city will divert the funds, but surely now we can spend it on something a little more worthwhile than a street that's essentially nothing more than a shortcut for Heights residents looking to avoid the train. Fine, then it's the Museum District or Montrose Walmart. It can also be the Rice Military, the West End, the Downtown, the Upper Kirby, the River Oaks and the Midtown Walmart.

Taken today, less than an hour ago, for your viewing pleasure: Just to remind everybody, this is the plot of land that adds character to the Heights and brings values up and reduces crime. And this is the road that is in no need of the upgrades Walmart will bring. Vroom vroom!

Good question! Here's an attempt to answer it.

Yeah, nobody. Not one. You picked a fine time to demand verbal precision, Lucille.

The savings is closer to 10 or 20% across the items I shop for regularly dependent on the competitor. And I easily drop $500 a month or more on groceries alone. I also have a kid who outgrows her outfits monthly, plus you have to take into account all of life's other ancillary purchases and the savings adds up quickly.

I don't get why you don't get it. Walmart is evil, but now that I do my grocery shopping there, I save far more than $200/year. I'm likely to save at least half that every month. Only the superwealthy and the superstupid make all their financial decisions based on their politics. Your numbers are wrong, but in this economy, every little bit of savings helps. I can't speak for your fears, but at the same time, depriving so many people of an improved discretionary income because you fear to cross a street with a crosswalk and a traffic light because of your fear is a bad idea. Please. Nobody builds anything without getting government subsidies. You should at least be happy those subsidies will improve the condition of the shoddy infrastructure throughout the area.

Yeah. Seriously.

What are you talking about? Is this just some blithe dismissal meant to belittle my opinion? Whatever. I've carefully considered both sides of this discussion long before we ever debated this particular Walmart, and I ran through all the same arguments so far presented here. Then, I discovered it's better to have an extra nickel in my pocket, and it's better for everyone to have an extra nickel in their pockets, than it is to shut down a single Walmart - unless the land it's built upon has some cultural or ecological value. Apparently, I'm just better than most at prioritizing which parts of my life deserve my ire and which I can be apathetic about. Really? Lot's o' speculatin' goin' on here. What if one used to live in the "neighborhood"? Is the opinion then valid? What if one plans to move into the "neighborhood"? Does the opinion then become valid? It's myopic to continue to drag out this trite canard and shove it down our throat as if it's gospel. Three miles is hardly a limiter inside the loop. This'll benefit everyone in the loop, even the dreaded "others" from parts of the loop too scary to tread. What, are you going to beat me up?

You live in the Heights. You don't live in the same neighborhood as this Walmart either. Oh, and SFW?

1) You don't know any of this to be true. It's all speculation. You have none of the secret boardroom meeting details between Ainbender, HEB or Walmart. You've scapegoated one company in this whole ordeal and lionized another. You have absolutely no idea why HEB pulled out, and even if they did pull out becuase Walmart made a better offer, then ask yourself why HEB didn't counter. Also ask yourself why should Ainbender be forced to accept a lower bid on their property just to make you feel better. They aren't responsible to you. 2) You completely didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you to speculate about the future course of events should the Walmart not build. I asked you in what way forcing the Walmart to not build makes the world any better. I'm curious if the positive benefits of not building the Walmart would outweigh the positive benefits of building the Walmart. Frankly, giving about 500 thousand people a higher quality of life rates higher in my book than preserving the character of a neighborhood for about 30 thousand people. (Which I still fail to see how the character of the Heights will be affected by this Walmart anyhow.) I don't know, why are you acting like "selfish yuppie, hipster, wasp, crybabbies [sic]"? I wish you'd stop already, it's embarrassing to the children.

If normal is the current state, then any development would have a larger than normal impact. That still doesn't merit any special consideration from voters. The basic point is, no one would give a crap if this wasn't a Walmart. If this was a highrise development, HAIF commenters would be saying things like, "Oh man, I sure do wish it had a zillion floors and not just 25," and "You should just be happy they're building that many. Bad economy and all." If it was a midrise development, the comments would be along the lines of, "I sure do hope they put in an Amy's Ice Cream with all the useful ground floor retail," and "Yeah, I could use an Amy's Ice Cream within biking distance. Then I could get my workout and my ice cream all at once tee hee." Some people are full of hate and anger, and very often they don't know why, and they have no clue where to direct it. So they center their impotent rage on the biggest thing around. It's everywhere. It's on the news. It's on the interwebs. It's in damned near every neighborhood and small town in America. It's more American than apple pie and baseball. It's the center of life in some communities. And why not be angry with such an imposing behemoth. It's like all that impotent rage I had against my parents and "the man" when I was a teenager. That's what this rage is against Walmart. It's angst. The world sucks right now. Walmart is clearly a villain. Therefore, let's rail against the beast. The only problem is, Walmart's not the beast. Walmart's the thumbnail on the beast. The entire system is flawed, and raging against this machine is dumb and pointless. It's teenage aggression. It's misdirected anger. Walmart isn't the problem. Walmart has never been the problem. The system that allows Walmart to exist is the problem. But many people don't care. They take their impotent rage and rename it Sancho Panza, and they take off on foolhardy crusades to defeat imaginary monsters. It's against Walmart, and it's against Walmart shoppers. Every other reason given is an after-the-fact justification. There would be no argument then. People would be positively giddy with eager anticipation. Frankly, I don't try to "preserve" anything. The world regularly changes, and I welcome the change. And if you truly think you can manage to keep the world static and unchanging, or even if you merely want it to remain static and unchanging, then I pity you. If you want me to stop being combative, how about you stop mischaracterizing what I've said? I don't think Heights residents are any better than anyone else. Many of you do though (I took the liberty of bolding a statement where you've set yourself apart for your uniqueness from the rest of the residents of Houston in the quoted statement before this one). And it's not because you "care", for whatever that even means. It's because you've blindly jumped on the cool hate-Walmart bandwagon, and you haven't given any real consideration to the impact your position makes - not just on you, not just on your neighbors, but on everyone who lives within the loop and everyone who passes through. Plus, at the end of the day, you don't own this property and therefore have no right to dictate the terms of development for it, not under current law, and to change the law midstream to affect one developer and one buyer reeks of cronyism worse than what already exists - and this time suppossedly in the name of what's right and good.

I take it you're the type of person who wouldn't sacrifice one person to save a thousand. And no, your intent was perfectly understood. What's not understood is how you let the demolition of one apartment complex speak for the plight of all poor people in the area. Surely it sucks that some poor people will lose their crappy homes, but the far greater benefit is that many of those same people will now be able to fill their new crappy homes with more food and functional solutions for modern living. Their buying power will still increase, even if their home base has moved. Why? Not why should we vote, but why do you think the city should put it to a vote? Why should you or I have a say in what happens with this piece of property? No one can articulate a cogent answer to that question. There is not a good reason why. Should we vote every time a new construction project comes up? Or just ones involving Walmart? Or just ones in the Heights? What makes Walmart or the Heights so special? I get that Walmart is the lightning rod for retail run amok, and I get that (some) Heights residents think they're God's chosen people, but c'mon. Just because some people's perception is askew doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge their idiosyncracies. The people of this city shouldn't be forced to the polls every time some virulently vocal minority group gets their knickers knotted up. That group of loudmouths should be slapped on the hand, told to play well with others and stop acting like brats.

Lots, especially if your selfishness can unnecessarily harm or disadvantage other people. That said it may be refreshing to hear it anyhow. In fact, it would be the first time on this thread someone opposing the Walmart construction was honest about their reasons. I really wish someone would say that rather than continue to wrap up their disdain in the same-ol' retreaded sanctimonious BS of which we're becoming so familiar. Agreed. I'm not a fan of Walmart. On a macro level, I have a huge problem with Walmart. Their blatant disregard for valuable archaeological sites is like a knife in my archaeologist heart. Then again, I recognize this isn't entirely Walmart's fault. (Hell, this article lists the Tennessee Titans, the state of Georgia and Whole Foods (?!) as also being bad corporate stewards to important American Indian burial and other heritage sites.) Our lax laws, our disregard for our past and the ridiculously high cost of living makes Walmart and its practices an inevitability. If you want to protest Walmart as a company, I'm right there with you. If you want to protest our values as a nation, I'm on board. If you want to protest our paucity of corporate restrictions, I'll join the picket line with you. But, on a micro level, I appreciate my Walmart. Having one nearby sure has freed up my disposable income. If you were smart, you'd let it free up your disposable income too. Edit: I can't think of a better selfish reason than that. Can you? I know! What jerks we are! How dare we put the welfare of others before you! Edit: Also, much earlier in the thread I proofed out how this Walmart would be better for the environment than forcing people to drive farther out. It's not necessarily altruistic, but it is planet positive and falls in line with my KPFT membership. No, there aren't. But the ones who are there sure are loud.

Alright, let's run with this. Let's say you're successful. Let's say the Walmart doesn't build. If that happens, what have you accomplished? All your talk of corporate tyranny, democracy and noble and just causes, what did you do? What did you achieve? How did preventing the Walmart from building make the world better? Preservation of a neighborhood's character isn't making the world better, and that's all you've achieved. Stop mythologizing your quest. You're slaying windmills, not giants. Your quest isn't noble, it's a farce. Preventing this Walmart won't make Walmart a better corporate citizen. It just robs poor people within the loop of their hard won earnings, and it robs your neighbors of convenience. Your goal isn't noble. Your goal is selfish.

Well, rather than continue to just naysay my understanding of what little context was present, why don't you explain what you meant, but this time clearly? Clear communication is a good way to avoid being misunderstood, if I was indeed misunderstanding you. Perhaps it'll help if I explain the path to my own conclusions, and you can tell me where I erred. In reading your statement, my initial thought was that you must be saying since Walmart's supposed building plan included the bulldozing of one single solitary low-income apartment complex, then that must be wryly conclusive evidence Walmart doesn't actually benefit any and all people who live in low income housing. Am I right so far? Because I didn't think so. I thought, "How ridiculous that I'd think that's what dbigtex meant, especially as he's proven to be reasonable and generally above bad logic and hyperbole." But what else could it have meant, what else could it have meant? I stretched the openings into the darkest recesses of my brain hoping that somewhere within would lie a clue as to what you meant. You're above piss poor logic and inflated exaggeration, at least you have been in the past, so surely you must have an alternate reason, something I hadn't considered. I clambered through my brain searching for other permutations in logic, and I followed individual thought patterns, though mostly to dead-ends. At one point, near the end of my patience, I stumbled across the assumption that indeed, surely dbigtex understood this to be the only possible set of poor people this Walmart would benefit. Otherwise, his (your) statement could only possibly be pointless and wrong. I knew there was no way for you to avoid being wrong, but I didn't want your statement to be pointless and wrong. Yes, this is an accurate retelling of how I reached that conclusion as, like you, I never hyperbolize. And resultingly, that's what I went with. That's what I wrote for the whole world to see. That's how I publicly interpreted your words. But, you've told me I was wrong, and you told be I'm being wrong deliberately. So I asked you to clarify your statement, but again, you just told me I'm being deliberately wrong. You haven't given me any insight into this "context" of which you speak so elusively, but hopefully someday perhaps we can reach those dizzying heights of lucidity. Hopefully someday I can know just what the hell you meant. For now, you just appear churlish, and as if you're avoiding giving an explanation for what you meant. But I pretty sure I'm probably being deliberately wrong about that too.

No. I think most of the people opposed to the Walmart think Walmart's shoppers are inferior. Otherwise, I have a hard time justifying the numerous references to peopleofwalmart.com, crime increases and property devaluations.

Because none of what you just said has been proven. None at all. And, it's a little weird you point to the 'burbs as a hyperconformist area, but in another thread you support the hyperconformity of historic districts. It's not that you don't want hyperconformity, you just want the hyperconformity to fit within your vision. Turning the tables on the rhetoric, huh? No, it's not class envy. Especially considering the majority of the people who will be positively affected by this won't be in whatever class you consider yourself. Another wickedly elitist talking point from S3mh though. I wonder if you can even understand how douchey the accusation of class envy sounds. Everybody wants more money. I don't understand where you're going with that. Oh, that's where you're going. Well, how about this? I'll admit to exacting a little bit of pleasure out of seeing some prissy, hipster elitists squirm because their vision of utopia is being forced to allow other inferior people in. But, that doesn't motivate me to support the building of this Walmart. I support it because as I now take advantage of Walmart's low prices (and they are considerably lower than the competition), I also wish I'd been able to take advantage of those low prices while a Montrose or Greenway resident. I'm certain there are plenty of people, maybe outside your social circle, who feel the same way. No. But if you'd read many of the supporters' comments rather than ignore them as seems more obvious, you'd find there is a strong commitment to independence and personal responsibility. We do support the builders and the land owners doing with their property what they deem fit. It is, after all, their property. By your logic, non-religious people should be able to tell churches they can't build nearby, and homes without children should be able to tell school districts they can't build nearby. For that matter, since a home doesn't have kids, they should be able to choose whether or not they pay school taxes. It is all up to the individual to determine everything about the environment that immediately surrounds him, right? Wrong. The individual can control what happens within his house, so long as he doesn't violate the law and doesn't hurt anyone. That's it. Any more than that, and you become the very thing that you're complaining about. Oh please. Protesting a Walmart building near your neighborhood is nowhere near on par with those movements. It's embarassing you continue to make this comparison. Well no, but then again, there is no evidence overwhelming against this Walmart! And you have a bad perception problem, because these attacks against your weak arguments aren't attacks against you personally. Unless you are a racist or a classist. In which case, you do suck at life. And you can mischaracterize the support all you'd like, but that doesn't change anything either. If you think two weeks will stop the Walmart, then clearly you've never witnessed community opposition to a Walmart before play out in the local press and the courts. I said it near the beginning of this thread, without an ecological or cultural reason to oppose this store, the community has no chance in defeating it. If over half of all residents of the Heights and all other areas within a ten mile radius opposed it, and signed a petition to prove it, this store wouldd still get built. Houston, TX is the wild west of real estate, and cronyism still exists, but it exists for those with the deepest pockets. There's no other way to say it, but you're SOL. Redirect your energies to a fight worth having. If you don't like Walmart's business practices, pressure your congressman into passing some retail reform laws. Otherwise, you're hurting people this store could benefit in your zeal to make your neighborhood just a little more pretentious.

I'll grant you the word change to symptom. I actually struggled with what word to use, and at the time, guise seemed best. In retrospect, you're right about that. But, I don't think it's symptomatic of our society alone. I think the fear of the others and, to a lesser extent, the protection of our own are what's motivated all human social interaction for most of human history. I also think it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of individuality that we humans started learning to be motivated by ideas far less insular. However, that doesn't mean we're all at that point, or even that any one of us is at that point always. If we were conflict would disappear, and everybody would have a let and let live attitude about pretty much everything. If I remember correctly, I positive repped that post - mostly because I wish I'd thought of it first. I also wonder how many of the pigs even caught the reference.

I'm pretty sure I didn't, but to be safe, perhaps you can give a little detail into what exactly you meant. The quote in question for ease of reference: "So, the building of this Wal-Mart is going to benefit low-income citizens ... by demolishing their affordable housing?" There was an article posted previously that said Walmart's average customer earns $35k/year and Target's average customer makes $50k/year. To me, this is clearly a class and race struggle, but those on the disgusting, offensive side of the struggle have been doing a pretty good job of maintaining the appearance of legitimacy by disguising it as being about traffic, property values and crime. As a student of nuance and of getting to the core of what drives human behavior, I can tell you almost invariably whenever the canards of property values and crime are brought up as reasons to oppose something, they're ALWAYS a guise for latent racism or classism.

Sorry. I should have been more clear. I was referring to the vocal opposition, not the majority of Heights residents.

I can count the number of times Marksmu and I have agreed on something on one hand, but I totally agree with him on this. Without clearer language, the ordinance is ready to be abused by those in power. Dismissing Marksmu's concerns as irrelevant and as little more than a conspiracy theory won't do anything to win you friends, especially with people who feel the same as him. Demanding a better, more secure product from lawmakers shouldn't be considered unreasonable or ridiculous, and imposing this on people who bought land prior to this ordinance taking effect just seems wrong as well. Maybe if the W in George W Bush stands for Walmart.

Well it's either hipster elitism or racism. Or a combination of both. Yeah, you did: "So, the building of this Wal-Mart is going to benefit low-income citizens ... by demolishing their affordable housing?" Or maybe you were trying to prove Walmart is evil and not concerned about the poor by drawing an analogy of no relevance whatsoever? I mean, you know, since Walmart isn't building this new supercenter to benefit just the people who live in that one single apartment complex. Edit: Unless you're suggesting this Walmart will be mobile and sentient, wandering around the innerloop devouring any low-income housing it comes across.

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

It will certainly make the neighborhood more exclusive. It's a good plan B if you fail to stop the Walmart construction.