Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
poyea

Land on Yale, just south of I-10

Recommended Posts

Look at the study I posted above, it suggests that. Not saying it is the end all be all but still some sound logic and information worth looking at.

I agree with everything you said in the above post. Except the point quoted... On vacant lots there is actually a HIGHER crime rate than if the lot were developed and used. So the development could possibly then decrease the crime rate ( I think this is a double win because violent crimes are more likely on vacant lots, need to verify tho) which is a good thing.

The only point that I would argue is a negative for the community in regards to crime is that it displaces emergency resources that might be utilized elsewhere in the community. Now that being said, if it brought enough revenue to the city that they would increase said emergency services to a higher capacity this point would be a non-issue. I don't think this is the case how-ever, just my gut feeling. Haven't looked that far into it.

In regards to the Walmart... I won't shop there but thats just my opinion. I am still out on how I feel about it "invading" our neighborhood... Is it better than the past Heights Park or whatever it was called? No, maybe not. Is it better than vacant lots that seem to be a haven for vandalism and vagrants. Yes. This is always the catch with land development.

I think Walmart is smarter than people think when they look at store placement and what the future hold. They know that the only way to keep profits up is cheap labor and cheap transportation, both of which are slowly going away... Wouldn't doubt it if they chose the location (over other nearby locations) for the nearby rail so to keep costs VERY low, as shipment by train is lower than by truck... This is a whole different arguement, which I have found is not well recieved, so I will leave it.

Your statement about the vacant lot is both true and proof of my point about the crime study. Violent crime is much more likely to occur in areas with few witnesses. While the vacant lot may be a higher risk for violent crime, the incidence of property crime on that lot is 0. And therein lies the rub. Your study assesses only property crime. While I am hesitant to criticize a study conducted at the alma mater of my dad (NC State) and my brother (App State), I must point out that they only compared property crime rates, and further, they did exactly what I predicted they would do, which is use Raleigh PD police data. As stated earlier, "Theft" is by far the most common crime, and most of that occurs through shoplifting. This is not groundbreaking news, but the percentages may surprise you. In Houston, 2/3 of all reported property crimes are thefts, dwarfing burglary and auto theft. And, it is no surprise that both retailers and local governments make it easier for shoppers to access retail stores, as retailers profit from increased sales, and local governments gain additional tax revenue from sales taxes and property taxes paid by retailers. With that increased access, both paying customers and thieves have an easier time getting to the store. This is not news. And, it is not unique to big box retail. ALL retail stores draw thieves. It is human nature. But, it does not necessarily make residents less physically safe.

http://mycity.houstontx.gov/crime/ucrPage.aspx

Note that statistically, theft accounts for 2/3 of property crime reports, but in reality, it is probably closer to 90 or 95%, as many thefts are not reported, the small loss not being worth the time of reporting it, or the theft only being discovered during end of month inventory. For example, the only 2 crimes I have suffered in the Heights were 2 thefts, one being the theft of a couple of 10 year old plastic chairs, whose value could be calculated in pennies, and a gas weedeater that cost $70 new, but was several years old. Even though I knew who the thief of the weedeater was (a contractor), I never reported it, as I knew that there was insufficient evidence to arrest him.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAIFers...does anyone have any knowledge of what is happening on the land on Yale, just south of I-10 (either side of Yale actually). There has recently been quite a bit of earth movers chopping up the concrete on the west side of Yale. The For Sale signs are still in place however. We were hoping for a new HEB location, but with Montrose getting one, we're not as hopeful anymore. HAIFers just HAVE to know something by now.

Thanks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAIFers...does anyone have any knowledge of what is happening on the land on Yale, just south of I-10 (either side of Yale actually). There has recently been quite a bit of earth movers chopping up the concrete on the west side of Yale. The For Sale signs are still in place however. We were hoping for a new HEB location, but with Montrose getting one, we're not as hopeful anymore. HAIFers just HAVE to know something by now.

Thanks!!!

This started out as a simple question and wound up looking like a script to a Maury Povich episode. Geez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This started out as a simple question and wound up looking like a script to a Maury Povich episode. Geez.

Je-rry! Je-rry! Je-rry! Je-rry!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not walmart specific, it was a general big box retailer study with some definition around "big box" which from what I remember focussed on the square footage and offerings of retail stores. I know that Supercenters and SuperTargets were figured in this particular study. I'd also be curious to see the stats from the new target. I think I might have it at home, will try and dig it out later today.

EDIT: Found something I read that lead me to the research last year.... http://www.ncsociolo...day/raleigh.htm

The part of praticular interest. (Keep in mind I found this when researching why we should NOT have I-10 feeders and on/off ramps)

" A total of 63% of the variance in property crime is explained when all accessibility and opportunity variables are entered into the equation. Opportunity and accessibility measures are very strong predictors for such a small unit of analysis. By explaining a large proportion of the variance in property crime, at a small level of aggregation, we are able to demonstrate that crime is a nonrandom event and is very predictable.

This research has established not only that crime patterns exist, but that crime is more often found in accessible areas with commercial land use. Shopping centers, storage places, schools, service stations, and restaurants tend to attract criminals along with legitimate customers to the area. Hence, commercial centers are good for both business and crime. The type of residential land use also has an effect on property crime. The more housing units on a street segment, the greater the property crime risk. Additionally, street segments without a predominance of owner occupancy are more likely to be victimized. The implications of this research are important in being able to identify "hot spot" areas. If certain areas or even certain places of a city are considered "hot spots" then efforts should be taken towards making these areas less criminogenic by reducing accessibility opportunity and/or increasing guardianship factors. "

That study doesn't in any way suggest that the criminals aren't from the area, in fact it suggests the opposite based on the fact that the types of living establishments (single family versus multi/apartment) in the area have a direct effect on the crime rate. In fact, according to your study we should be just as worried about building more schools as we are more businesses, since crime goes up significantly near schools, and "since offenders are typically school age, the existence of a middle or high school on a segment represents a gathering of potentially motivated offenders and increases the risk of property crime to the area".

So if you want to minimize the parking lot crime, according to your study, tear down a few schools (kids steal things), get rid of the apartments (poor people steal things), and fight the I-10 feeder and added exit (accessible places get more crime for obvious reasons).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That study doesn't in any way suggest that the criminals aren't from the area, in fact it suggests the opposite based on the fact that the types of living establishments (single family versus multi/apartment) in the area have a direct effect on the crime rate. In fact, according to your study we should be just as worried about building more schools as we are more businesses, since crime goes up significantly near schools, and "since offenders are typically school age, the existence of a middle or high school on a segment represents a gathering of potentially motivated offenders and increases the risk of property crime to the area".

So if you want to minimize the parking lot crime, according to your study, tear down a few schools (kids steal things), get rid of the apartments (poor people steal things), and fight the I-10 feeder and added exit (accessible places get more crime for obvious reasons).

I didn't specify that study, if you would reread my post I said this particular one I posted the link to was one that LED to the information I referred to. I still cannot find the one that does tie through traffic to the crime rate. You are targetting me as a part of the opposition, yet I never picked sides. I was simply trying to clarify and bring more light to the situation as a whole so people could make an educated decision.

Now, you have just contradicted yourself... I guess all neighborhood criminals would be jumping on and off I-10 stealing stuff so they can take the next exit and double back to their home??? Also, I think you mis-interpretted the information. They study suggests that if it is mostly home-owners in and area rather than renters (apartments included) or commercial buildings, there is a heightened awareness and people are more likely to watch for crime, therefore lowering the crime rate. Please explain how this supports the "opposite" of saying through traffic raises crime rate? Does it say definitively that people who live in those arpartments are robbing eachother?

Please do some research and carefully read others posts before attacking and stating "facts"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not groundbreaking news, but the percentages may surprise you. In Houston, 2/3 of all reported property crimes are thefts, dwarfing burglary and auto theft. And, it is no surprise that both retailers and local governments make it easier for shoppers to access retail stores, as retailers profit from increased sales, and local governments gain additional tax revenue from sales taxes and property taxes paid by retailers. With that increased access, both paying customers and thieves have an easier time getting to the store. This is not news. And, it is not unique to big box retail. ALL retail stores draw thieves. It is human nature. But, it does not necessarily make residents less physically safe.

I agree with all you have said. My only arguement/concern was not whether we were less physically safe but rather the response times and use of those emergency resources would be comprimised by opening any bigbox store therefore causing the use of those resources to be allocated to commercial areas dealing with theft rather than the current scenerio of them patrolling the area. As I said before I havent dug into this but would be interested to see if someone has done some research on the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't specify that study, if you would reread my post I said this particular one I posted the link to was one that LED to the information I referred to. I still cannot find the one that does tie through traffic to the crime rate. You are targetting me as a part of the opposition, yet I never picked sides. I was simply trying to clarify and bring more light to the situation as a whole so people could make an educated decision.

Now, you have just contradicted yourself... I guess all neighborhood criminals would be jumping on and off I-10 stealing stuff so they can take the next exit and double back to their home??? Also, I think you mis-interpretted the information. They study suggests that if it is mostly home-owners in and area rather than renters (apartments included) or commercial buildings, there is a heightened awareness and people are more likely to watch for crime, therefore lowering the crime rate. Please explain how this supports the "opposite" of saying through traffic raises crime rate? Does it say definitively that people who live in those arpartments are robbing eachother?

Please do some research and carefully read others posts before attacking and stating "facts"...

I'm not contradicting anything. The study clearly states that accessibility is a big factor in crime, but it can't state that as a direct cause of it. More likely it's an indirect cause in that more businesses are built in accessible areas than inaccessible ones. I never said that through traffic doesn't lead to increased crime, I agreed with that. My original statement that you argued against was that the criminals you are worried about already live here, building a Wal-Mart won't increase or decrease the number of criminals around.

My only rebuttal was to your statement that the studies somehow indicate that it is not people who live in the area who commit the crimes. That can't be concluded from that study in any way, and I am saying the study suggests the opposite, that locals (from apartments and schools apparently) are the most likely criminals.

I'm not trying to be attacking at all. I just stand by the statement that the criminals we're all afraid of are already here, this will just be a new target for them.

Edited by 20thStDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, so we will be getting a crappy little WalMart without the variety of items all the yay-sayers have been so excited about with crappy quality items with a bunch of leased space i.e. a mini-mini mall. Now we will all be screwed.

Go Walmart!

The link to that article was broken. It was originally published in the New York Times, available here. Do note that the article does not reference Houston or Texas even once, and mostly discusses a store in Chicago and the prospect of further penetrating Chicago, Detroit, and the northeast corridor.

I don't really see the relevance of this article to Yale Street in Houston, TX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link to that article was broken. It was originally published in the New York Times, available here. Do note that the article does not reference Houston or Texas even once, and mostly discusses a store in Chicago and the prospect of further penetrating Chicago, Detroit, and the northeast corridor.

I don't really see the relevance of this article to Yale Street in Houston, TX.

Considering all the chatter about low wages, work conditions, etc, it seems like this article is very relevant to this (dare I say) discussion. The opening paragraph states, "If Wal-Mart can succeed in the urban market, that could mean several hundred stores just in major cities like New York, Chicago and Detroit". Unless you don't consider Houston a "Major city".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering all the chatter about low wages, work conditions, etc, it seems like this article is very relevant to this (dare I say) discussion. The opening paragraph states, "If Wal-Mart can succeed in the urban market, that could mean several hundred stores just in major cities like New York, Chicago and Detroit". Unless you don't consider Houston a "Major city".

It does not follow that Houston is not a major city. Just that we're nothing like New York, Chicago, or Detroit...thank goodness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering all the chatter about low wages, work conditions, etc, it seems like this article is very relevant to this (dare I say) discussion. The opening paragraph states, "If Wal-Mart can succeed in the urban market, that could mean several hundred stores just in major cities like New York, Chicago and Detroit". Unless you don't consider Houston a "Major city".

It is very likely that the reason Houston was not included is because Walmart is all over Houston. They only do not yet exist inside the loop. 75% of the city is already served by Walmart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...