Jump to content

Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.


HeyHatch

Walmart at Yale & I-10: For or Against  

160 members have voted

  1. 1. Q1: Regarding the proposed WalMart at Yale and I-10:

    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      41
    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      54
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      30
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      26
    • Undecided
      9
  2. 2. Q2: If/when this proposed WalMart is built at Yale & I-10

    • I am FOR this WalMart and will shop at this WalMart
      45
    • I am FOR this WalMart but will not shop at this WalMart
      23
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart but will shop at this WalMart
      7
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart and will not shop at this WalMart
      72
    • Undecided
      13
  3. 3. Q3: WalMart in general

    • I am Pro-Walmart
      16
    • I am Anti-Walmart
      63
    • I don't care either way
      72
    • Undecided
      9

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

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.

Where have they been kept out of in Houston? I know Wal-Mart has been kept out of New York City, but that is a city with zoning and more restrictive laws. Houston has no zoning. This may still be a PR issue for Wal-Mart, but the store is going to be built.

However, it seems residents of that area and the surrounding communities are not willing to settle.

If they aren't willing to talk to Wal-Mart and ask them to build the store a certain way, they are out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have they been kept out of in Houston? I know Wal-Mart has been kept out of New York City, but that is a city with zoning and more restrictive laws. Houston has no zoning. This may still be a PR issue for Wal-Mart, but the store is going to be built.

If they aren't willing to talk to Wal-Mart and ask them to build the store a certain way, they are out of luck.

I was the Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a small town. During my tenure, Walmart proposed to build a Super Center in a residential neighborhood. At that time, I opposed it and was able to convince enough of my fellow commissioners to vote it down. Of course the city council approved it unanimously a week later. I opposed it because it was out of character with the neighborhood.

If Houston was zoned and I were in the same position, I would vote to approve it. This is because a Walmart is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, I think that if you hit that area with several B-52 strikes it would improve property values. I think a Walmart will also improve property values. The fears about traffic and crime are overblown. I support the Walmart.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have they been kept out of in Houston? I know Wal-Mart has been kept out of New York City, but that is a city with zoning and more restrictive laws. Houston has no zoning. This may still be a PR issue for Wal-Mart, but the store is going to be built.

If they aren't willing to talk to Wal-Mart and ask them to build the store a certain way, they are out of luck.

Spring Valley successfully resisted Wal-Mart. I have also heard that residents beat back a Wal-Mart proposed for Beltway 8 and West Road. Wal-Mart has also been defeated in Helotes, TX.

Houston doesn't have zoning, but that doesn't mean the City is required to grant every variance, approve every permit and give the developer a 380 agreement. There is real political opposition to this development. City leaders are concerned about the increased burden on police at the time there is a hiring freeze. City leaders are also concerned about the traffic issues. The application for a variance for a reverse curve to extend Koehler from Yale to Heights may be put off again because the developer has yet to provide a traffic impact study and has not provided plans for the proposed development. The rubber stamp is going to be kept in the desk on this one.

And you are nuts if you think Wal-Mart is going to negotiate with anyone. They have already put a contract on the land and will not give up a single sq ft unless they have no choice. Wal-Mart won't even tell anyone how many sq ft the store will be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably in the name of preserving the neighborhood's character. You know, since that... er... neighborhood has so much... uh... character?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you are nuts if you think Wal-Mart is going to negotiate with anyone. They have already put a contract on the land and will not give up a single sq ft unless they have no choice. Wal-Mart won't even tell anyone how many sq ft the store will be.

And you are nuts if you think Walmart won't try to build a store that is more appealing to the surrounding residents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have they been kept out of in Houston?

Spring Valley successfully resisted Wal-Mart.

Spring Valley is not Houston. Houston has approved many Wal-Marts in the past under the same set of ordinances that apply at present, and without contention. There's precedent. If they make this an exception, Wal-Mart sues the City (and wins).

The City can work with Wal-Mart to a mutually agreeable outcome or it can pony up for the lawyers at a time when budgets are tight. Which would you choose?

Houston doesn't have zoning, but that doesn't mean the City is required to grant every variance, approve every permit and give the developer a 380 agreement. There is real political opposition to this development. City leaders are concerned about the increased burden on police at the time there is a hiring freeze. City leaders are also concerned about the traffic issues. The application for a variance for a reverse curve to extend Koehler from Yale to Heights may be put off again because the developer has yet to provide a traffic impact study and has not provided plans for the proposed development. The rubber stamp is going to be kept in the desk on this one.

And you are nuts if you think Wal-Mart is going to negotiate with anyone. They have already put a contract on the land and will not give up a single sq ft unless they have no choice. Wal-Mart won't even tell anyone how many sq ft the store will be.

In short, the city has yet to approve Wal-Mart's plans because Wal-Mart has not presented them for approval. ...and that somehow means something to you?

I don't doubt that the City will exercise scrutiny with this Wal-Mart; the issue is too politically sensitive not to risk not crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i'. But let's be clear. The City of Houston's own 2009 Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan identifies Yale as a "Major Thoroughfare (To Be Widened)" and Heights as a "Major Thoroughfare (Sufficient Width)". The Ashby controversy does not and cannot apply here; the City of Houston anticipates and has been planning to accommodate an increase in traffic long before Wal-Mart became a neighborhood concern.

The 380 agreement with Wal-Mart helps them speed up their plans by a few years, but don't forget that the City is still planning on widening Yale north of I-10 to 11th Street, and also from 20th Street to the North Loop. And this is a huge part of why I think that Wal-Mart traffic is a red herring. If traffic were such a huge concern, then the MTFP would've been identified as a contentious issue long ago. But...it wasn't and isn't. Why not?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spring Valley is not Houston. Houston has approved many Wal-Marts in the past under the same set of ordinances that apply at present, and without contention. There's precedent. If they make this an exception, Wal-Mart sues the City (and wins).

The City can work with Wal-Mart to a mutually agreeable outcome or it can pony up for the lawyers at a time when budgets are tight. Which would you choose?

In short, the city has yet to approve Wal-Mart's plans because Wal-Mart has not presented them for approval. ...and that somehow means something to you?

I don't doubt that the City will exercise scrutiny with this Wal-Mart; the issue is too politically sensitive not to risk not crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i'. But let's be clear. The City of Houston's own 2009 Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan identifies Yale as a "Major Thoroughfare (To Be Widened)" and Heights as a "Major Thoroughfare (Sufficient Width)". The Ashby controversy does not and cannot apply here; the City of Houston anticipates and has been planning to accommodate an increase in traffic long before Wal-Mart became a neighborhood concern.

The 380 agreement with Wal-Mart helps them speed up their plans by a few years, but don't forget that the City is still planning on widening Yale north of I-10 to 11th Street, and also from 20th Street to the North Loop. And this is a huge part of why I think that Wal-Mart traffic is a red herring. If traffic were such a huge concern, then the MTFP would've been identified as a contentious issue long ago. But...it wasn't and isn't. Why not?

Houston has never approved a 200,000 sq ft (according to Ch. 2 last night) Wal-Mart supercenter in an urban area. If you think a Wal-Mart at West Rd and 45 is precedent for a Wal-Mart on Yale, then there is no point arguing with you.

And the approval of one Wal-Mart does not bind the City to approve all Wal-Marts. There is no stare decisis in permitting. If the City has discretion to deny a permit, variance or tax abatement, that decision cannot be reviewed by a court. Only the failure to perform a ministerial act can be reviewed on mandamus. The only thing a developer can do is to file a BS constitutional claim like the Ashby developers did. The standard of review under the constitutional due process claims is so low (rational basis) that no one ever wins. The Ashby developers probably lost their financing in the market crash and are now trying to get tax payers to fund their stupid tower. The standard on an inverse condemnation claim is just as easy for the city (the Ashby developers abandonned their takings claim altogether).

And there is a big difference between widening a road and adding lanes. There is absolutely no way to add lanes on Yale. Same issue on Westheimer, which is also identified as a road that will be widened. Also, the widening of Yale was planned because of the feeder road expansion (which was planned with the rest of the I-10 expansion project 10 years ago), not because of Wal-Mart.

Councilman Gonzalez announced last night that he is against the current proposed Wal-Mart supercenter development. Word is that others are poised to follow as there is major discontent that 380 agreements are being used to support developments in areas of the City where there is already plenty of development (Mixed use project on Allen Pkwy, gated community on TC Jester, condos on White Oak) while TIRZs in districts that desparately need retail, commercial and residential development have not done anything in years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't anything wrong with Walmart shoppers. I've read back through some of this thread, and I don't see where the shoppers were belittled by anyone. I did see lots of straw man accusations that opposition was based on that. Maybe I missed it?

very often in this thread I read someone saying crime will be increased with walmart, and that the strain on the existing police force will be increased.

this seems to only revolve around walmart, not target, not bed bath and beyond, not home depot, not any other big box stores, or even other commercial retail options that could go in that exact place other than a walmart.

based on that, I make the inevitable conclusion that this means that people believe the walmart shoppers will attract crime, or even are responsible for the increased crime themselves.

Anyway, that was my reasoning for making any statements about walmart shoppers.

my earlier statements about spandex were more tongue in cheek (even though I didn't make that very clear) and based primarily on that website I linked in the same post which seems to single out spandex.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

based on that, I make the inevitable conclusion that this means that people believe the walmart shoppers will attract crime, or even are responsible for the increased crime themselves.

a few alternative conclusions

Wal Mart itself appears as an easy target due to uderstaffing / less security in the parking lot (even if this is only a perception)

Criminals can rationalize stealing from Wal Mart because they are so big it won't really hurt them.

Wal Mart is so busy that it is easy for criminals to get away or go unnoticed.

Wal Mart is so cheap that if you are caught you will be charged with a lesser offense.

Wal Mart has the things people want

Wal Mart's return policy is so generous that people can more easily return stolen items for cash.

Nonetheless I don't think wal mart shoppers are more criminal than any other retail shoppers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very often in this thread I read someone saying crime will be increased with walmart, and that the strain on the existing police force will be increased.

this seems to only revolve around walmart, not target, not bed bath and beyond, not home depot, not any other big box stores, or even other commercial retail options that could go in that exact place other than a walmart.

based on that, I make the inevitable conclusion that this means that people believe the walmart shoppers will attract crime, or even are responsible for the increased crime themselves.

Anyway, that was my reasoning for making any statements about walmart shoppers.

my earlier statements about spandex were more tongue in cheek (even though I didn't make that very clear) and based primarily on that website I linked in the same post which seems to single out spandex.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my earlier statements about spandex were more tongue in cheek (even though I didn't make that very clear) and based primarily on that website I linked in the same post which seems to single out spandex.

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/

Edited by LookyHere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very often in this thread I read someone saying crime will be increased with walmart, and that the strain on the existing police force will be increased.

Recognizing that any large-scale development will increase crime does not equal belittling the customers that shop there. The customers are the prey. Most criminals that burglarize autos or robbing customer don't stop off to pick up the week's groceries on the way in and out of the parking lot.

The difference between this location and the other developments is proximity to residences. Criminals often work on ease-of-opportunity. There is no inventory of concentrated housing directly surrounding Target's borders (other than the Sawyer Lofts, but apartments are good burglary targets). Apples/oranges. I agree, though, that increase in crime isn't the most valid reason for opposition. The majority of crimes committed in/around a Walmart will be shoplifting and employee theft. Neither of which have a great impact on the surrounding neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got a multipage flyer in the mail from "Friends of Walmart" with a link to more info at http://walmarthouston.com/ Does anyone know what areas outside of Heights proper are receiving these? I'm in Shady Acres so it seems pretty smart on their part to garner support from other neighborhoods. And here in Shady Acres, I have yet to see those blue signs from http://stopheightswalmart.org/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got a multipage flyer in the mail from "Friends of Walmart" with a link to more info at http://walmarthouston.com/ Does anyone know what areas outside of Heights proper are receiving these? I'm in Shady Acres so it seems pretty smart on their part to garner support from other neighborhoods. And here in Shady Acres, I have yet to see those blue signs from http://stopheightswalmart.org/

"Friends of Walmart" - awesome. Sounds very cult-ish. I hope I don't have to be their friend to buy cheap crap there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recognizing that any large-scale development will increase crime does not equal belittling the customers that shop there. The customers are the prey. Most criminals that burglarize autos or robbing customer don't stop off to pick up the week's groceries on the way in and out of the parking lot.

The difference between this location and the other developments is proximity to residences. Criminals often work on ease-of-opportunity. There is no inventory of concentrated housing directly surrounding Target's borders (other than the Sawyer Lofts, but apartments are good burglary targets). Apples/oranges. I agree, though, that increase in crime isn't the most valid reason for opposition. The majority of crimes committed in/around a Walmart will be shoplifting and employee theft. Neither of which have a great impact on the surrounding neighbors.

Good points for you and LookyHere.

I can say with confidence that WalMart does take security and safety of customers seriously, go out to the WalMart on Kirkwood and Westheimer, there's a patrol golf cart that cruises through there. plus, even though they only keep them for a few days at best, each WalMart has a closed circuit surveillance of the parking lots. I also seem to remember that there is a security guard at the WalMart on 45 near Almeda.

"Friends of Walmart" - awesome. Sounds very cult-ish. I hope I don't have to be their friend to buy cheap crap there.

heh, that's called "Sam's Club"

from that site, I saw this and lol'd..

The custom design of this Walmart, with consideration given to landscaping, lighting and sustainable design, will mean that this property blends in with the surrounding community

I've driven down those streets in close proximity to the location, I imagine the store will be simulating a pile of concrete rubble possibly with the look of a warehouse that has been abandoned for 20 years :P

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got a multipage flyer in the mail from "Friends of Walmart" with a link to more info at http://walmarthouston.com/ Does anyone know what areas outside of Heights proper are receiving these? I'm in Shady Acres so it seems pretty smart on their part to garner support from other neighborhoods. And here in Shady Acres, I have yet to see those blue signs from http://stopheightswalmart.org/

This is Wal-Mart's prepackaged PR campaign that they launch when they face resistance. Take a look at www.walmartbaltimore.com and www.Walmartchicago.com. They do not even bother to change the template for their pro-walmart website. In Chicago, "protestors" were paid $100 to come out and demonstrate on behalf of a proposed Wal-Mart: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/walmart-pullman-paid-demonstrators/Content?oid=2099358. While they are entitled to their PR campaign, it is just so disingenuous to talk about the area needing a grocery store while planning to cram a 200k sq ft superstore (according to Ch. 2 last night) into the area.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Wal-Mart's prepackaged PR campaign that they launch when they face resistance.

I read the terms of usage part and it is as folksy as a civil procedure textbook.

Though I am in no way refering to anything anywhere at anytime for anyreason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Crime at Wal-Mart is in large part committed in the parking lot. Now that everyone drives SUVs, it is very easy to pull a weapon on someone as they go to get in their vehicle. If you have two SUVs parked side by side, the crime will not be seen unless someone is in very close vicinity. Add to that the fact that Wal-Mart parking lots are massive, the fact that lower income people tend to not have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash, and the fact that most Wal-Marts are sited by major highways for easy getaway, and you have a great place to commit a crime. If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime at Wal-Mart is in large part committed in the parking lot. Now that everyone drives SUVs, it is very easy to pull a weapon on someone as they go to get in their vehicle. If you have two SUVs parked side by side, the crime will not be seen unless someone is in very close vicinity. Add to that the fact that Wal-Mart parking lots are massive, the fact that lower income people tend to not have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash, and the fact that most Wal-Marts are sited by major highways for easy getaway, and you have a great place to commit a crime. If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

Please provide the information to support your statements which sound more like opinions than facts as you state them:

1. Crime at Wal-Mart is in large part committed in the parking lot.

2. The fact that lower income people tend to not have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash

3. If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

I won't question the "fact" that the parking lots are massive except to counter that they are not that different than other big box retailers or the shopping centers located all over Houston. Also I would add that two SUV's often park next to each other in some of those parking lots so how is that different? Sounds like (imo) that we may have hit upon an issue with allowing two SUV's to park next to one another - maybe a new ordinance??? :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

Can we agree to revisit this in five years? I'd like to make a bet that there will be no significant difference between Walmart's and Target's crime stats. If I win, I'll do something embarassing I guess. If you win, you have to stop being so resolute in your statements about such abstract and unproveable outcomes. Either that, or you have to tell us where you get your tea leaves, because I imagine they must make damned fine tea as they suck at predicting the future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you driven down Koehler? If they widen that street, it will be right up against some people's front doors. Literally.

I wonder if the city is planning on taking any land with eminent domain for the street/sidewalk. That'll be a *hitstorm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the approval of one Wal-Mart does not bind the City to approve all Wal-Marts. There is no stare decisis in permitting. If the City has discretion to deny a permit, variance or tax abatement, that decision cannot be reviewed by a court. Only the failure to perform a ministerial act can be reviewed on mandamus.

"If the City has discretion..."

Under existing ordinances, the City would not appear to have that level of discretion. They could deny the 380, but Wal-Mart would no doubt proceed anyway; crappy streets have never stopped them before. If the City lacks discretion but denies a permit anyway, that decision can (and will) be reviewed by a court. And comparable case studies having to do with the City's prior decisions, perhaps involving other Wal-Marts or perhaps involving developments of similar scale, would likely be considered as evidence.

...there is major discontent that 380 agreements are being used to support developments in areas of the City where there is already plenty of development (Mixed use project on Allen Pkwy, gated community on TC Jester, condos on White Oak) while TIRZs in districts that desparately need retail, commercial and residential development have not done anything in years.

Relevance? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime at Wal-Mart is in large part committed in the parking lot. Now that everyone drives SUVs, it is very easy to pull a weapon on someone as they go to get in their vehicle. If you have two SUVs parked side by side, the crime will not be seen unless someone is in very close vicinity. Add to that the fact that Wal-Mart parking lots are massive, the fact that lower income people tend to not have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash, and the fact that most Wal-Marts are sited by major highways for easy getaway, and you have a great place to commit a crime. If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

Please allow me to call you a liar. You have no idea what the percentages or numbers or even types of crime committed at Walmart is, but you made this statement up to further your goal of opposing this store. How do I know that you made it up? Well, I am in the crime business, as those who began posting more than a couple of months ago are well aware. I know more about Walmart crime (and Target, JC Penney, Kroger, HEB and Valero crime) than likely anyone on this forum. I know that your statement is an outright fabrication.

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.

This is also largely incorrect, but I don't think this poster made it up on purpose, he's just listening to non-experts. I can't speak to corporate policy, but virtually every Houston area Walmart has both inside and parking lot security. Theft is a big expense for Walmart, and they spend a lot of money to combat it. They have very high tech surveillance systems and personnel manning it and apprehending shoplifters. I know several of them personally, since I deal with the aftermath (the criminal charges that are filed). This brings us to why Walmart is considered "high crime". It is because they catch so many shoplifters it skews the numbers. Crime statistics are based on actual incidents and arrests. If a store catches more shoplifters, the stats reflect more theft. By comparison, those stores that do not have good security will show less theft in the stats. And, while there is some crime in any parking lot, it is dwarfed by the shoplifting occurring inside the stores. All one needs to do for proof is look at the percentages of crimes committed citywide. Property crimes account for 83% of all crime, and Theft accounts for 60% of all property crime.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the city is planning on taking any land with eminent domain for the street/sidewalk. That'll be a *hitstorm!

Not really. The developer owns land all the way up the street. They would simply donate a few feet of ROW to the City so that the improvements can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime statistics are based on actual incidents and arrests. If a store catches more shoplifters, the stats reflect more theft. By comparison, those stores that do not have good security will show less theft in the stats. And, while there is some crime in any parking lot, it is dwarfed by the shoplifting occurring inside the stores. All one needs to do for proof is look at the percentages of crimes committed citywide. Property crimes account for 83% of all crime, and Theft accounts for 60% of all property crime.

There was an interesting article a while back about wal mart's exceptional prosecution of even the most petty thefts and their subsequent realization that there should be some threshold for prosecution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-wal-mart.2190898.html

This article was pretty exhaustive in the New Yorker about Target's theft prevention, which states that roughly half of retail crime is by employees.

(you need a subscription to view the whole article but the abstract is pretty good)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/01/080901fa_fact_colapinto

I agree that most of the crime associated with wal mart is against wal mart itself and Wal Mart is probably way more efficient at catching people.

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...