LookyHere

I also ride my bike to pick up assorted needs around the neighborhood. I ride to Kroger, Fiesta, CVS

That's right. We don't. But it could. It might not increase crime, but chances are greater that it will. There is a slim possibility it will not increase flooding or cause more polluted run offs in to our water, but statistically chances are significantly greater that it will. It may allow some small businesses to survive, but there will be more loss than gain in the independent, local business. Local businesses help our economy more than national retailers, especially big boxes. No one truly knows what WILL happen, but based on what has happened in other cities and towns, the stats lean toward the negative impacts being much more likely and that is what people are trying to do- prevent the negative or at least mitigate it as much as possible (knowing that any development will bring increases in the negative but if done wisely can be much less than Walmart).

If this is true, what explains the growing values of homes in the Norhill that were posted about earlier? Historic, deed restricted and continues to grow in value. My friends who live in a nicely renovated 2/2 on 14th, which is a less desirable street due to the traffic, have seen their home increase in value to the tune of $50k in the 4 years since they bought it.

I think she would be boycotting the developer.

Yes and the widening of Koehler will push the street right up to his fence. Wouldn't you be against that if it was your townhome? Or are people who support the Walmart too good to live in townhomes? To the previous quote, I rode my bike down Heights, across 12th and back across 8th and all the Walmart signs I saw were older homes except one new construction. I don't think you can pigeonhole the opposition based on residence, as all kinds of people are against it. Just as all kinds of people are for it. The constant stereotyping, whether it's of Walmart shoppers or Walmart protesters, really adds less than nothing to the conversation.

Another "yes please" from another parent. Honestly, after what happened on Washington, I would not be surprised if Spec's is seriously looking at this development. They want a store in the area and this just might be the best possible location!

I have nothing against Walmart shoppers. To be fair, here is a group of people that probably reject the notion of Walmart as much as I do and are sometimes even more unsightly than the peopleofwalmart, and definitely more obnoxious http://www.latfh.com/

I know J008 pretty much covered it but the recent lawsuit filed against Walmart discusses how it has actually been their corporate policy to not have security in their parking lots. Another cost saving measure to keep their low-but-steadily-increasing-at-more-than-50%-on-some-items prices down. There was an architect present at one of the public Stop Walmart meetings who discussed several reasons why Walmarts have so many crimes. The large, large parking lot with no security is one, having no windows is another, being open 24 hours was yet another factor. I would venture to say that crimes are perpetrated against Walmart shoppers, rather than committed by them. They are easy targets for the reasons listed.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding who and what these people are fighting for. The "real" opposition to the Walmart is not about saving the Heights' character. You see that from people who just hear about the issue and want to add their 2 cents but the real people who write the blogs and talk to the press are not arguing "character." I have never heard or read that. They are worried about traffic and quality of life, but not character. Now, quality of life is just as subjective as character, I agree. Still, you need to start paying attention to the real people who have lives that will really be affected by this if you want to argue the merits of the opposition. Have you driven down Koehler? If they widen that street, it will be right up against some people's front doors. Literally. And the fact that they are not arguing for character makes the "just ask for something that matches the neighborhood better" argument moot. Size, yes. Aesthetics, no.

Clearly opposition to the project doesn't see it this way. Walmart is hosting a community meeting and hiring PR gurus, so certainly they see some kind of threat. They have been kept out of other communities in Houston and all over the country. The fight for a lot of these people is real. Yes, there are issues with that area but what I think people hope (and I can only say "think" because I don't live over there and don't know anyone on a personal level who does) that development occurs in an intelligent way, not just a free for all. I do know that the Superneighborhood council has been working with developers and their position currently seems to be one like you suggest. However, it seems residents of that area and the surrounding communities are not willing to settle.

I agree with the 1st statement, especially that it's a deep feeling about Walmart, itself, which is to say not about poor people in general. However in the first several pages posters weren't veiling their dislike of Walmart. Several people openly said they did not like Walmart as a company and then were subjected to long-winded lectures on how ridiculous they were for feeling that way or even attacked on a personal level. They were told that they needed a real reason to dislike Walmart, not their silly political or ethical ones, so they stopped making that argument. More practical, less emotional reasons surfaced: traffic, crime, property values. This still wasn't good enough and posters were repeatedly told that their concerns about these issues aren't valid. It has been stated before in this thread, but you should never start from a middle ground if middle ground is what you are trying to achieve. If you start in the middle, a corporation like Walmart will negotiate you right back to where they wanted to start from in the 1st place. Intelligent opposition starts at the exact other end of the spectrum and lets Walmart negotiate them to the middle. This is how a lot of people I have spoken with feel.

Really? I believe based on the OP's own opinions on the subject matter that she would welcome the poll. Weren't you the individual who complained about too many threads and requested a merge? I think many people wanted the poll and were interested in the results so unless a 3rd thread is posted, this post is as good for a poll as anywhere else.

First, I want to say in general for this thread, many people have said they don't like Walmart, don't want Walmart but never said that they would openly be protesting it. It looks to me like this thread started before the Facebook group and anti-Walmart organizations were even put together. I have to wonder if the attack mode that was so strong in the beginning of the discussion didn't galvanize some people to take action when previously they were just disappointed? Just because people don't like Walmart and don't want it on this land does not mean they plan on standing on Yale with picket signs. Some of the time, it's just griping, commiserating, or wishfully thinking out loud. So, yes, not hating the Yale Walmart is not the same as being all out pro-Walmart JUST AS disliking Walmart and hoping this project fails isn't the same as chaining yourself to a tree on Ainbinder's property and sending flaming bags of dog poop to their HQs. The individuals who organized the Facebook group and are most active in this fight are, as I understand it without being heavily involved, residents of streets like Koehler. They see this development as a serious threat to their home value, safety, comfort, way of life. Sure, corporations and property owners can enter in to agreements, but City officials should also be accountable to the people who voted for them. The Mayor has said explicitly that she cannot and will not deny Walmart the right to build there just cuz, but I think if the anti-Walmart people do find cause for permits to be denied, like traffic issues and crime concerns backed with good numbers, that the City can, and should be able to, support the residents/tax payers over an out-of-state corporation. This is MY OPINION. I am not trying to convince anyone that they are wrong in how they feel. This is just my side of the story and it's not being expressed to tell you or anyone that they are wrong in their OPINION. Please do not waste breath or key strokes trying to convince me otherwise as if I haven't even considered both sides of the issue. I am smarter than that and so are most of you. Plus, the reasons why Walmart should be able to build here have been repeated ad nauseum on this page and they still haven't changed my mind. The fact remains, it's all very subjective and no one knows what the outcome will be if Walmart builds so everyone has the right to try and get the outcome they find most desirable. It's all so very American!

While I agree that might be true, that was not the argument being made earlier in this thread.

I hear you there but I thought a big part of the pro-Walmart argument on this forum was that people will be coming from all over to shop here and that this is not about the demographics of this neighborhood, but neighborhoods with in a large radius, many of whom would actually be closer to Crosstimbers?

Honestly, you care about someone liking or disliking your post? Wow! Ha. I always thought those "ratings" were kind of lame. I click here or there, just to see what happens but I certainly never give any real thought to it like "Oh no! I have a negative reputation point on HAIF!" I'm just really surprised. I think calling someone out and asking them to explain why is a little childish. If he doesn't like your comment, he doesn't like it. You certainly dislike plenty of comments but prefer to express yourself through verbosity rather than clicky reputation buttons. No one should have to explain themselves. If he wanted to debate, he would have added comments.

An article released yesterday. DISCLAIMER: I DID, indeed, get this from the Stop Walmart group BUT it also has some interesting facts for those of you who shop at Walmart to save money. It might be time to head back to Fiesta for your oatmeal and Windex. An excerpt of the 1st few paragraphs below. If you would like to read it in its entirety: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/walmart-raises-prices/19587730/ Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), which for years has touted its prowess at lowering prices, has been doing the opposite as it tries to bolster its bottom line amid stagnating sales. A JPMorgan Chase (JPM) study of a Walmart Supercenter in Virginia found that the world's largest retailer has raised prices by nearly 6% on average over the past six weeks, according to the New York Post. Reuters says it was the biggest sequential increase since JPMorgan started the study in January 2009. Some Prices Hiked Over 60% Some of the price hikes were considerably larger. For instance, the price of a 32-ounce bottle of Windex household cleaner jumped 50%, a 12-ounce box of Quaker Oats instant grits climbed 65% and a 50-ounce container of Tide detergent rose by more than 50%. A spokesperson for the Bentonville, Ark., company could not immediately be reached for comment. The results of the price-hike study aren't entirely surprising. Shares of Wal-Mart, which rose at the height of the recent recession, are down more than 2% this year amid lackluster performance at its U.S. stores, where same-store sales fell 1.1% during the 13 weeks ended April 30. When Wal-Mart announced a revamping of the management team overseeing these stores, including the departures of CEO and President of Wal-Mart U.S. Eduardo Castro-Wright and Chief Merchandising Officer John Fleming, current Wal-Mart U.S. CEO Bill Simon bluntly said, "our mandate is clear: increase customer traffic, make sure our products are relevant to our customer and never give an inch on price leadership." Unfortunately for Wal-Mart, keeping prices low is tough with less store traffic. To make matters worse, rivals appear to be doing better. Target (TGT) reported a 2% gain in July same-store sales, which are a key metric for retail investors. Kohl's (KSS) reported a 4.1% gain. Wal-Mart stopped releasing monthly same-store sales figures for its units last year, so making an apples-to-apples comparison is difficult. See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/walmart-raises-prices/19587730/?icid=sphere_copyright

I don't have any interest in going back and finding the post about this, but I do want to comment on something someone mentioned about the Facebook page. So, a couple of people have joined the group to act out and post pro-Walmart comments. Someone here suggested that these few people (four, at the most by my reading) dilute the group's numbers and the comment was something like "So much for their 4000+ members." This is symbolic of how ridiculous this whole thread has become. Really? Even if 10% of the Facebook group were "moles or trolls", that would be 490 out of 4900 and change. I mean, I wouldn't even look at those numbers if someone hadn't tried to argue that point. At this time, I check this post about every 3rd day and while there will be a good 10 posts between the last time I read it, it's the same comments over and over again. Yawn. The only certain "FACT" here is that it's all opinion at this point. What proWalmart people say will happen, what antiWalmart people say will happen. Unless someone here has a magic crystal ball, no one can be certain of what WILL happen. The anti Walmart people, myself among them, are trying to prevent what they fear might happen but no one knows for sure. And none of the "Go Walmart" people can be sure this will be the boon they are saying. It's just your opinion and it doesn't make sense to state what will happen in the future as fact. Only one thing in the future is certain: someday we will all be dead. Until then, your projections, objections and reactions are all just your opinion.

Frosted Betty will be in front of OoLaLa on Studewood every Thursday afternoon. I stopped in when I saw the sign hanging in their window. I thought maybe the baby store was moving out and cupcake bakery moving in but they are just going to be pulling up their trailer.

THIS is the answer. I know my friends in Norhill really want a "no means no" protected status. If that neighborhood wants it, let them have it with out all this other nonsense.

This is the case for us as well. We bought a medium sized bungalow that was renovated by the previous owners. The renovation is almost 10 years old now but it suits our small family fine. My partner and I think often about adding another child to the mix but we cannot afford a larger, new construction and there are very few bungalows with more than 3 bedrooms. I office from home, so we have to have that space available. Preservation of bungalows allows us and many of our friends (who are artists, academics, musicians as well as middle management professionals) to call the Heights home. I have several friends (a ballet dancer, one who works at TUTS and another who works at the Alley) who live in Norhill, which I believe has the strictest historic ordinances in the Heights. They have all had to make "conforming" changes and go through the HCAC. It did not make any of their changes cost prohibitive. These are not super high income people. I do not live in a Historic district but the renovation to my bungalow was pretty conforming. If conforming was totally cost prohibitive, the young couple who owned this home before us probably wouldn't have been able to do it this way. The most expensive part of a renovation like this is wood windows and they are well worth it in the long run.

But this is Houston and the mixed use development and residential density from apartments and townhomes are about as "urban" as a sprawling city like Houston gets.

It worked and was worth it. I also like "I bet this dog poodle in a tin foil hat can get more fans than Glenn Beck"

I had the City Counsel meeting streaming on line to hear the Heights Walmart speakers and Lovell brought up a couple of these other topics. I couldn't tell you exactly what it was because I was only half paying attention at this point but I definitely heard her say that repairs would not be cause for the city to make you bring your house up to the new standards. She mentioned set back as an example, saying that if you had to do repairs or make changes this would not force you to meet the set back requirements if your house was not in compliance before the ordinance is passed. I believe she also mentioned "not" and "landscaping."

I have been to a couple variance hearings and I can tell you that the builder in question is well known for siding with new development. I know that's only one vote but I thought it was worth mentioning.