AtticaFlinch

This may be the first time I've been accused of being conservative on this site. Or anywhere really. There's more than two sides to almost every issue, S3mh.

I didn't realize "poor" was a bad word. I didn't realizing calling someone who's poor a poor person was demeaning. Oh wait, it's not. And on your contention you didn't say the development was bad for the poor, I suppose you're right. You said Walmart's bad for everybody but the poor who'll get cheap toilet paper, but that the poor eking out an existence should take a back seat to preserving the character of a neighborhood in which Walmart is not even going to build. Observe your own words: No elitism there! No sir, not at all. You keep repeating this mantra as if we've all accepted your premise that this Walmart is only intended to benefit Heights residents, when in reality, it's painfully obvious that it's intended to attract consumers from all over the inner loop, be they residents or employed in the area or just passing through. This isn't just for the Heights, and I suppose if it was, they'd have looked for land on Studewood and 14th. Yeah! Next time I see two gas stations across the street from another, I'm going to have to protest whichever one was built last! That seems worthwhile!

Not only that, but by the figures listed in the article S3mh posted, Walmart and Target aren't even attracting the same financial demographic. If Target's shoppers make on average $50k/year and Walmart's shoppers earn $35k/year, then Target should have nothing to fear. Unless the Sawyer Target is currently drawing from Walmart's demographic, Target should see no discernable dip in sales. And, if Target is drawing from Walmart's demographic (I guess due to there not being any Walmart within the loop), then this new Walmart will increase these people's purchasing power, thereby improving their quality of life. Why would anyone oppose raising the quality of life for those less fortunate than themselves?

Did you read the rest of this article?! It totally demoslishes your earlier argument that Walmart causes more harm than good for poor people. An excerpt: The article concludes that the poor would be the worst hit casualties in a campaign to stop Walmart. I'm floored you'd even link that article. And remember, there's much more to the inner loop than just the Heights. This Walmart is targeting the entire area, not just above 20th Street, and not just Target shoppers.

If you make a deal with the devil, you shouldn't be surprised when he demands your soul in payment. Those business owners know very well what they're getting themselves into, and they do it anyhow. Those small businesses Walmart goes around pillaging and plundering are no better than Walmart. They're interested in increasing their profits regardless of the cost. Don't waste your tears on them.

For your entertainment. I saw this last night and it made me think of y'all. Normally Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's conclusions annoy me, but this time I think they're spot on. If you don't like the Walmart, then you have to show restraint and don't shop there. It's that simple. You have to be committed to supporting your local businesses if you want them to survive.

So... don't discuss in a discussion room... Maybe you'd be more amenable to my presence if my position reflected your own? Likewise. Realize you are not the only person affected by this Walmart. This thing will affect everyone within the loop, of which I was a resident until very recently, and not just you, and not just your Heights neighbors. You've seemed to have forgotten about everyone else this will affect in your zeal to keep the Heights pure and free of corporate imperialism (or whatever). Oh, and I have a Walmart in my backyard. It's at least as close to my backyard as this Walmart is likely to be to your backyard. But again, what does this have to do with my ability to have an opinion on the topic?

What does any of this have to do with my ability to have an opinion on this topic? Because that's what I was responding to.

Only Heights residents can use this Walmart? When I lived in Montrose, I used the Target all the time, and sometimes I still go by there if it's convenient to pick something up. Oh, and by the way, WALMART ISN'T BUILDING IN THE HEIGHTS. So it really doesn't matter where I live. Thanks for exemplifying my point about elitism though.

That was actually an attempt at levity. Sorry my joke fell flat and you took it personally. Is Target a box store? Is Target in the Heights? Are there really no strip malls in the Heights? C'mon, man, I can see your hyperbole showing. I don't resent people who are successful. By most standards used to measure success, I'm successful. I'm not rich, but I'm certainly not poor. I am also pragmatic, almost to a fault, and my interpretation of the arguments put forth in this thread against the Walmart is based on the fact those arguments are super-dooper flimsy and easily refutable. Every single one of those arguments has been roundly demolished, yet those opposed to the Walmart continue to make them. I grant you my interpretation of the underlying gist of the arguments may be wrong, but something other than the stated reasons are what's really driving the opposition. As it is, I think most members of our society hide deep-seated anthropologically appropriate fear of "others". We just find ways to justify our fears and hatred under the guise of do-gooderness in this modern era where such basic biological conceits aren't welcome. I can make all sorts of irrelevant analogies. Irrelevant analogies don't strengthen my argument. No. I enumerated my argument earlier. You even quoted it and replied to it (sort of). Here it is again, copy/pasted from above, so as to be clear: "1) the inherent hypocrisy of those who've singled out Walmart for their corporate misconduct while giving a pass to other, equally vile corporations and 2) the inherent hypocrisy of those who don't live paycheck to paycheck speaking for those who do." This is my argument. If you dislike Walmart, fine. Don't shop there. Write your congressman (or run for congress) to change the laws that allow Walmart to operate the way they do. Go out and fix the real problem and I'll support your efforts. But spare me the sanctimonious BS about Walmart's naughty corporate ethics if you're cool with all the other corporations in the city doing the exact same unethical things, and please stop speaking for the poor, or their best interests, as the reasons you've given for your opposition are selfish and not remotely for the benefit of the unwashed masses. Then please make an attempt to clarify what underlies the opposition. If traffic, crime, property values and unethical corporate practices are all canards, then what's the real reason, if not elitism and tyranny? Racism? No one likes that dirty word around here. You know this property isn't on Yale and 15th, right? You keep talking about the people in the neighborhood as if this Walmart will actually be in the Heights. Oh, and by the way, poor people in Houston also pay taxes in Houston. The Heights is a neighborhood in Houston. It is not its own city. If Heights residents were the only people who paid taxes, more specifically if Heights residents opposed to this Walmart were the only people who paid taxes in Houston, then maybe your justification would have merit. As it is, Heights residents aren't the only taxpayers in the city and therefore don't have any ability to dictate the development outside their little bubble. And one other thing, going back to your first paragraph, so many people in the neighborhood talk about their "right" to protest for whatever reason given, but very few people who talk of these "rights" seem to realize that the "rights" granted to them are also extended to everyone else in our city, including the landowner and including the developers and including the executives at Walmart.

I've related an experience where I priced a crib at Target and Walmart, and Walmart came out $20 cheaper for the exact same product. The prices came from the Target on San Felipe and the Walmart on Dunvale. At $99 for the product at Walmart, and $120 at Target, the savings was substantial enough for me to remember it a year after the fact. And, I could be wrong here, but baby cribs aren't products that strike me as being typical "sale" items, nor is it something I would imagine Walmart would use as a "price point" to fool consumers into falsely believing their prices are the lowest. I imagine there are many items Walmart's price competitiveness fades on, electronics being chief among them, and other areas where product quality can't compare with other retailers, but when price and convenience are the leading motivators for the consumer, Walmart cannot be beat.

If Walmart was the only one to pony up the highest amount of cash, and it is an acceptable amount for the property owner, then it is Walmart or nothing. If HEB really wanted the land, then they'd have offered to pay more. I never said Walmart is an upstanding corporate citizen with the interests of the community in mind. Never once did I write that. However, I did write that I hate Walmart and its corporate values. I hate the system that allows to to exist but that from time to time, when my personal finances dictate a need, I'm glad it exists. I'd implore you to learn to parse the subtleties of my argument, but I clearly expressed my viewpoint to in the post you've just responded to. It is still not a character attack. It is still not an ad hominem. How can you speak for poor people unless you are one or have been one? You don't know the lifestyle, and you don't understand the lifestyle. With all likelihood, your understanding of poverty or paycheck-to-paycheck living is something you know from Hollywood or that one time you took a wrong turn into the bad part of town before you got a GPS. That said, there are plenty of people here who gave testament to their personal hardships and those of their family and neighbors and explained that yes, they would like to finally have an inexpensive place to shop for beans and rice nearby. Edit: Also, after rereading your third point, I have to ask what that has to do with Walmart at all? Walmart sells the product after it's been sold to them, and they'll mark it up based on the price they paid. They don't grow or subsidize the cost of production. That's the government's and agribusiness' fault. You've really missed the mark with your indignation if you blame Walmart for the low cost of processed foods. If you want the price of food to more accurately reflect the true cost of production, you should write a letter to your congressman, not join an anti-Walmart Facebook page. I know. I've read what they've had to say, and I've come to the conclusion that all arguments given thus far against the construction of this Walmart are nothing more than examples of thinly veiled elitism. For examples see below: Argument translations: 1) "Walmart will lower my property values." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. Home buyers won't pay a lot of money to live near that sort of stuff." 2) "Walmart increases crime." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. Those people are criminals." 3) "Walmart is bad ethics." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. I will continue to drive my 7 mpg SUV (10 highway! lol!) to my job at the oil conglomerate while eating at Boston Market but latch onto Walmart as if it's the only lil debbil practicing bad ethical judgment because white transh and dark-skinned people unsettle me." 3) "Walmart is more traffic." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. I don't want them to drive the same streets as me. I'll completely ignore that any development on the proprty will increase traffic in order to drive my point home." I've yet to read a coherent argument in opposition to this Walmart in this thread that does not reek of tyranny and elitism. And yes, I hate Walmart, but I do compromise on my objections when I can buy a can of baby formula there considerably cheaper than I can anywhere else in this city. Liberal scion Michael Moore, of whom I'm a fan, once pointedly answered an inquiry questioning his values when it was noted that he drove a General Motors automobile (directly after "Roger and Me" hit the screens) with something to the effect of only the rich can afford to base all their decisions on their ethics. I am not rich, and the rich do not speak for me.

I wasn't responding to why Walmart was expanding, as you weren't addressing that either. I responded to your assertion that poor folks inside the loop don't need and don't shop at Walmart. It is not an ad hominem attack, and without proof there are no merits to the argument. That was the point made. Anecdotal evidence is all that's available to address what "lower income residents of the inner loop" want or need. I've not discussed the individuals who've designed or built or been contracted to do either of those for Walmart (though many would probably be happy for the work right now - I've lately met with several engineering firms and construction companies who've had to lay-off employees and cut back the work weeks of those who remained). Throughout this thread, I've spoken only from two points: 1) the inherent hypocrisy of those who've singled out Walmart for their corporate misconduct while giving a pass to other, equally vile corporations and 2) the inherent hypocrisy of those who don't live paycheck to paycheck speaking for those who do. The other pro-construction perspectives have been taken by several other posters, not me.

But if Walmart is targeting ALL the residents of the inner-loop, regardless of income or race or whatever else, then they would build right where they're intending to build. Not every Walmart customer is a peopleofwalmart.com stereotype. Despite what some Heights residents on this thread have said to the contrary, many Heights residents will shop at this new Walmart.

All your postulations and conclusions are entirely based on the assumption that "low-income inner-loop residents" don't ever shop at Walmart - I guess because there isn't one nearby (I don't know, that seems to be about the extent of the logic). I contend "low-income inner-loop residents" DO shop at Walmart already, they just drive farther to do it. As neither of these points can be proven because no evidence has ever been amassed regarding this, except by perhaps Walmart, then perhaps we should trust the anecdotes of people who are "low-income inner-loop residents" or at least who once were. Are you a "low-income inner-loop resident", or are you just another person who knows better than the "low-income inner-loop residents" about what's good for them? And N Judah, classy move, guy. You can neg rep every post I make (I think you've missed two!), but you won't bait me into doing the same to you or anyone else I disagree with. You and they are entitled to whatever viewpoint they wish, no matter how ill-conceived it is, and if it warrants any negative attention from me, it also warrants a reasoned response. N Judah: always taking the path of most passive-aggressive.

You are always right in Smugland. You're like Superman, but with a Facebook page instead of superpowers.

Also speaking from experience, at least as of a year ago, the $120 baby crib at Target is available in the exact same model from the exact same manufacturer for $99. This means two things. One, big boxes have the same damned suppliers for at least one of their items. I'm willing to bet you can extrapolate that to most of their inventory also. This is to say Target is ripping off the same set of Chinese workers as Walmart. Two, the person who paid $20 more for the exact same baby crib as the one I bought got raped. I'd rather have a neighbor who took advantage of cheap Chinese labor than a neighbor who went around raping. Also, how stupid would it he to waste $20, just under 20% more, for the exact same thing just because one shop is cooler than the other. That sort of decision making skills is what caused our economic meltdown in the first place. That's just a bad use of money, and anyone who would choose the Target product over the identical Walmart product shouldn't be allowed anywhere near money. Had I really been concerned about Walmart's politics, I still would have bought the crib at Walmart and used the savings difference to donate to an anti-corporate PAC. That would be a much smarter use of the cash. I guess some people would rather just waste their cash.

Might does not make right, no matter if the intentions are good or not. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. For every ill-conceived battle you fight in order to create your urban oasis, you create 1000 more problems. Fight away, self-described liberal, but your liberalism looks more like Che Guevara than Martin Luther King. They both had successes, but one is a revered leader who's memorialized in some way in virtually every city in this country while the other is now little more than a T-shirt design. Even if you manage to keep Walmart out of the inner-loop (which you won't be - there is no ecological nor cultural value to that land), it won't fix a damned thing. Walmart will still be evil, the poor Taiwanese will still be working for ten dollars per year, the million plus employees of the company still won't qualify for medical insurance, the women still won't be promoted fairly, they'll still sell genetically-modified agriculture... all this and the less than wealthy residents of the Heights and surrounding communities won't he able to take advantage of low prices. To use another trite axiom, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. And you fall right into their trap. By wasting time focusing on individual stores, you've allowed them to sneak the big picture cultural, political and economic shift right by you. They've changed the world for the worse, and you somehow feel that defeating one tiny store will correct everything. It fixes nothing, but it creates another 1000 problems.

As a teen, I used to swim in the San Jacinto River on occasion. Ain't nothing wrong with me, plus the flipper I grew about ten years ago helps me swim faster.

There's something Google pulls up called BP Research Center on 6700 Portwest Drive. Granted, it's in the 024 zip code, so it's not technically in the Heights, but it's north of 10 and inside the Loop. Close enough for Heights residents to be sufficiently outraged by the presence of a despicable corporation with unethical business practices to be too close for comfort. I imagine there's already a Facebook page protesting this exact location and Heights residents are probably lining up outside the company gates with pitchforks and picket signs. I mean, if corporate malfeasance were the real issue here and not some sense of faux classist superiority, then surely no one would want to be labeled a hypocrite. Protest one evil empire, you've gotta protest all of 'em. And what's worse, bringing low prices to the masses or dumping millions of barrels of sludge into the Gulf? People have some (self redacted) priorities.

Too bad they didn't build this a decade ago. It could have drawn a slightly more risque Montrose 2 AM crowd than the one that now exists.

Porn is founded on bad assumptions?

Don't forget you can sprinkle a few Sam's in there for good measure. Speaking of Sam's (or stores exactly like it), there's a Costco smack in the middle of Greenway and no one seems to mind that in the least. I shopped there all the time when I lived in Greenway, and so did my River Oaks, Afton Oaks, Rice, Bellaire and West U neighbors, if the type of cars they drove were any indication of where they lived (along with the "Tower of Terror" bumper stickers). I guess Costco must be "cool" like Target.

Except that it's harder to get to and less central than the supposed Yale location. Besides that, Heights residents would obviously not be able to use it then as it would fall outside their comfort zone. Use HEB as a great case in point (there's an entire thread about it somewhere but lord knows where it is). Many Heights residents hoped beyone hope that this property would be filled with an HEB as there are no convenient HEB locations nearby... despite there being an HEB on TC Jester and 18th. Putting a Walmart outside the loop would be like putting it on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. It would miss a substantial part of its intended clientele.

Huh? I don't follow. I hate Walmart and quite a number of other major corporations (except for the one that employs me - I love you guys). I just recognize the need for a place like Walmart given the nature of our economy. And, as such, I don't see how eschewing Walmart in the Heights benefits anyone whatsoever. It's like when Rick Perry denied Texan taxpayers our share of the bailout loot because he was grandstanding to his party base. Sure, it made a handful of braindead GOP tea party types feel all warm and fuzzy, but in effect, he hurt a bunch of Texans for no real reason. It was mindless political theater and nothing more. Similarly, why shouldn't people in the Heights also have the same benefit of low prices as the people in the 'burbs? If low prices are available, then everyone should be able to take advantage of those low prices. If you prefer to abstain from Walmart, for whatever reason, then go ahead and abstain. No one will think ill of you for it. Most people only shop at Walmart out of necessity and understand that if you can afford to base your decisions on personal politics and not personal economics, then more power to you because we'd do the same if we could. But with that said, just because you can afford to make that decision doesn't mean everyone can. And who are you to dictate what and where I buy the goods that feed, clothe and otherwise support my family? If you'd like to pay my bills, then you can dictate to me where I shop. Otherwise, butt out of my personal affairs. Remember, not everyone who lives in the Heights is living the high life, and an even greater number who were livin' it up a couple years ago probably no longer are now. To impose your preferences on everyone around you reeks of tyranny. On the other hand, if you were to hand me a petition calling for an overhaul of our economic system which would prevent future cases of corporate misconduct such as perpetrated by Walmart, then I'd sign it. Hell, I'd probably volunteer to stand on a street corner and get even more signatures. But I wouldn't waste my time on something so inconsequential as Walmart trying to build on land that has no ecological or cultural value. I don't think Walmart should be the new "working class dream", but I'm mostly a pragmatist. Let's solve the underlying illness, and the symptoms will sort themselves out.