Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[little frau]

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

[s3mh]

We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center. Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development. There is no need for you to throw out vague generalities when we have a specific site to look at. This development will improve the area, regardless whether a few dozen protesters don't like it.

I'm still wondering why any Heights resident would join forces with a group of people who razed a single family neighborhood so that they could build a 3 townhome per lot development in its place. I'm further amazed that these townhome residents can claim Walmart ruins the neighborhood with a straight face.

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder.

And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet.

As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

[Marksmu]

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

Bungalows are an important part of keeping the Heights personality, so I fully support people doing tasteful remodels and there will always be a strong market for a beautiful old bungalow, but the McVics as you like to call them are what is driving the growth and value of the Heights.

I do not think the McVics are ruining anything. Some are ugly, but most +/-90% are extremely attractive and well done.....I can tell you one thing for sure....the McVics as you like to call them are not ruining the neighborhood....they are the driving force behind its increase in quality from year to year.

Nor will the WalMart ruin the neighborhood. The only thing ruining the neighborhood in my opinion is a bunch of snobs who think they are better than everyone else who want to tell everyone else what to do with their money and their property. If the snobs, whether they be bungalow elitists, preservationist, or just some kind of Walmart hater, would just shut up and keep their opinion to themselves, the entire neighborhood would be a much better place.

[barracuda]

I don't understand why traffic keeps coming up as an argument against this development. Any development on that site is going to increase traffic.

With the other Walmarts being built in the area, I would suspect that this Walmart will primarily attract local residents and have a fairly compact radius of shoppers. Even if it does cause significant net-new traffic, the new feeders and on/off ramps on I-10 should mitigate neighborhood traffic through the Heights on Yale.

[s3mh]

I never claimed being an authority as YOU claim I was attempting to be - I was rehashing what others have posted over 27 pages and NOT making my own claims or attempting to give information about traffic studies. And how do you know that I don't know about the traffic issue? I might just be a traffic engineer - I'm not nor claim to be. However, I do live near by and drive Yale regularly along with Heights so I'm as much an expert as most on this forum.

You need to relax a little and realize that this is a bulletin board forum and is used by many of us to stay informed or entertained and quit attacking.

So, you get to attack me and call my posts "obnoxious" and ridicule the traffic numbers I have provided, but I am supposed to just sit back and take it? If you are not an authority on traffic and know nothing more than what you see out the window on your daily drive, then why are you slamming me by name on this issue? I have done the research, seen documents related to traffic analysis for the site and researched the traffic requirements in the city's design manual. But, I am just supposed to sit back and let you and everyone else ridicule me because you have driven down Yale St? I can take all the attacks from people on this forum. But, the idea that I am not allowed to return fire because I represent a minority view on this board is pretty offensive. I will relax when other relax. I will respond to attacks when attacked.

[JJxvi]

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts. Since when is Koehler St. a 4 lane road? The proposed Walmart is not on the feeder. It is on Koehler (a two lane local connector) and Yale, one block south of the new feeder. Yale is classified as a major thoroughfare and has 4 lanes, but it will operate more like a 3 lane road because they are going to dedicate a northbound lane to turn traffic. That means only one through lane from Washington to the I-10 feeder.

And you know nothing about zoning. Zoning isn't just a question of residential v. commercial v. retail. Zoning regulates density within the allowed use. The major factor behind controlling density is the availability of road capacity to handle traffic. When completed as proposed, Yale St. will have 5 traffic lights in a space of just over a 1/2 mile between the I-10 feeder and Washington. Zoning would recognize the limited amount of traffic that can flow through the area and limit the amount of retail sq ft that can be built on the parcel. In fact, in most cases where Walmart gets beaten back, it is because they are unable to get a variance from local zoning to allow for a supercenter sized store in an area that is not zoned for that size of a retail outlet.

As for the last crack, I guess I am glad to hear that you are now on board with the historic preservation ordinance. The West End has followed the development model of Rice Military and Montrose. If you think that putting in town homes ruins a neighborhood in the same way a 24 hour Walmart Supercenter ruins a neighborhood, then you have completely lost touch with reality.

So what lower density use do you propose this 18 acre parcel be used for since, in your mind, it would clearly be too much of a traffic burden in this area?

[WAZ]

We also recognize that a development fronted by 2 4 lane roads with a freeway next to it is a perfect location for a retail center.

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Again, I'm not anti WalMart per-se (in fact, I'd like them to put a WalMart near me - to replace the old Sharpstown Macy's and anchor the PlazAmericas Mall). But now you've got me looking further at the Heights WalMart site, and I think the opposition has some valid points.

Every land use regulation in the country would zone this parcel for retail development.

Which is precisely why I don't support zoning in Houston. Zoning ordinances don't necessarily take into account the intricacies of specific neighborhood concerns. They don't prevent land-use battles either. The New York City zoning ordinance is 3,000 pages long, and includes detailed zoning maps of almost every block in the City. But there's still a war going on over the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards.

Edited November 23, 2010 by WAZ

[JJxvi]

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Koehler along the development is being widened to 44 feet (I assume thats 4 lanes) all the way from Bonner to Heights Blvd. I believe Bonner and Bass streets on the back side (assuming Yale is considered the frontage) are also being improved and widened. I think Bass was expected to be connect as an outlet/inlet from I-10 as well. And like you mention, they are building access to I-10 west from/to Yale now.

[RedScare]

Where's the second 4 lane road? I'm only seeing one - Yale: and that's pretty narrow for a 4 lane road. No shoulders; no room for islands or center turn-lanes. It has buildings up to lot-lines on the sides, too. I don't know how they'd be able to widen the ROW without getting even more people angry.

Also, while I-10 runs past the site, there is no exit from I-10 to Yale. The nearest exit drops you onto Studemont, and you'd have to drive around the block to get to the site. Granted, TXDOT is apparently planning a new exit that would directly serve Yale - and I hope that's all the construction along the stretch of I-10.

Again, I'm not anti WalMart per-se (in fact, I'd like them to put a WalMart near me - to replace the old Sharpstown Macy's and anchor the PlazAmericas Mall). But now you've got me looking further at the Heights WalMart site, and I think the opposition has some valid points.

I would've thought that someone who nitpicked my post so much in post #1330 would have paid just as much attention to my other posts. Note that I said "development", a term that includes the entire Ainbinder project. If you had spent a few seconds looking at the site plan before typing, you'd have realized that the development will front both Yale AND Heights, both of which are 4 lane streets. But, I guess since you decided to side with sm3h, you have also decided to adopt his tactic of ignoring pertinent information, such as access to a second 4 lane thoroughfare.

And, why would TxDOT add full frontage roads if they did not also plan to install entrance and exit ramps to them? And what are these buildings up to the edge of Yale that you describe? Every building on that stretch of Yale has been demolished for the impending development. I'm sure that if a few feet of ROW is needed, Ainbinder will happily donate it for access to his property.

So, two 4 lane thoroughfares with access to a third thoroughfare (Washington), brand new feeder roads and a massive freeway, and you want to join the 'there's no room' crowd? Knock yourself out. We need new arguments to make fun of.

[samagon]

Yes, we do have a specific site to look at, but you do not even bother to look at it because you are so biased against community participation in the development process that you do not care about the facts.

although it is fairly obvious you are either ignoring me, or choosing to not respond to my questions, but since you feel redscare is against community participation in the process of development, let me ask the question that begs to be answered...

what role are you taking in the development process?

All I have ever seen from you is hatred and words that point distinctly to the fact that you do not want a walmart there. that isn't taking part in a process that is opposition to a process.

taking part would be working with the developer to offer better strategy for their vision. what are you doing, what is your group doing towards that goal?

don't pretend like you're taking an active participatory role when you are in fact taking an active opposition role.

the two are distinctly different, and there's no way you can confuse the two.

[s3mh]

I would've thought that someone who nitpicked my post so much in post #1330 would have paid just as much attention to my other posts. Note that I said "development", a term that includes the entire Ainbinder project. If you had spent a few seconds looking at the site plan before typing, you'd have realized that the development will front both Yale AND Heights, both of which are 4 lane streets. But, I guess since you decided to side with sm3h, you have also decided to adopt his tactic of ignoring pertinent information, such as access to a second 4 lane thoroughfare.

And, why would TxDOT add full frontage roads if they did not also plan to install entrance and exit ramps to them? And what are these buildings up to the edge of Yale that you describe? Every building on that stretch of Yale has been demolished for the impending development. I'm sure that if a few feet of ROW is needed, Ainbinder will happily donate it for access to his property.

So, two 4 lane thoroughfares with access to a third thoroughfare (Washington), brand new feeder roads and a massive freeway, and you want to join the 'there's no room' crowd? Knock yourself out. We need new arguments to make fun of.

How is Heights Blvd going to help traffic flow out of Walmart? Who cares whether a portion of the development fronts both Heights and Yale. We are talking about Walmart in this thread, not some yet to be named "chef driven restaurant" that will lease on of the other pads. Nice try, but Heights Blvd is not the issuse. Yale is. Yale is inadequate for the traffic needed. Yale will connect to the feeder via Bass. But that won't get you anwhere as you will have to worm through exiting I-10 traffic just to get to sit at the light at Yale. Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess.

You also need to actually drive around the area and take a look at Yale St. Yale is grade separeated at one end and goes over a bridge at the other. Adding a lane at the grade separation and over the bridge would be fantastically expensive if not prohibitively so. And the northwest end of Yale at I-10 is San Jacinto Stone, not a demolished building. They are also virtually grade separated as their property is on a slight hill above Yale. The developer is not going to be donating ROW because 1) the developer will make you and me (i.e. taxpayers) buy it from him (see 380 agreement where developer gets $50+ per sq ft for $22.5 HCAD value land for Koehler extension ROW) and 2) the developer doesn't own all the land on both sides of Yale. Bobby Orr's company owns about half of the land on the east side of Yale south of the Dirt bar. I don't see Orr being willing to donate land to Ainbinder. And that is probably the portion of land that would be needed to alleviate the north bound congestion on Yale. Sorry, but life isn't as simple as you think it is. Developers can't donate land they don't own and streets can't be widened at the snap of a finger when there is grade separation and bridges in the way. The facts are clear: this is not where you can put a Walmart Supercenter. The infrastructure will not support it, absent a massive investment above and beyond what is in the 380 agreement and, more than likely, above and beyond profitability for the developer.

[JJxvi]

It seems like the entity with the most experience and expertise in "the infrastructure needed to support a WalMart store" is, well, WalMart and they seem to have decided that this location and developer have a site worth signing onto.

Perhaps Heights residents know better?

I know that I manage to go over to Target, Staples, PetsMart, etc, in addition to driving down Sawyer to get to Sawyer Park so the trips add up to multiple trips through that area per week and I never have a problem with traffic somehow. Theres a couple bank branches and fast food places over there, the stores I mentioned, plus a few restaurants, a loft apartment complex, and theres only 4 lanes in/out, no feeder road, no extra north/south thoroughfare like at Heights to help take some traffic to/from traffic from the secondary retail space, no other side street that also gives access from IH10 or Washington, and Sawyer is NOT grade separated at the railroad tracks, and somehow, someway there dont seem to be many problems at all...

Of course you will no doubt counter with "SuperCenter" and 24 hour, as if a handful of cars at 2 am is going to cause a logjam at 5pm, or that a couple departments in WalMart are going to make up for more than the large amount of bigger secondary retail like PetsMart and Staples that are at Sawyer Heights, but whatever.

Edited November 24, 2010 by JJxvi

[JJxvi]

That's not even to mention just the fact that this WalMart will actually cut down my trips to Target since they are in competition and WalMart will be closer to my house, so its a positive impact from my personal traffic on Sawyer/IH10, with mostly minimal impact on Yale since I drive down Yale to I-10 to get to Target/PetsMArt/Staples ALREADY. Hell, if Ainbender can sign BoA as the bank branch and move them from Washington, my world will get a whole lot better as I will now be able to use Yale/I-10 exclusively for my trips to the bank rather than coming home from work down Memorial to Waugh, left on Washington and back up Yale to my house to/from their existing branch (waiting for my company to figure out that direct deposit exists, but whatever).

Edited November 24, 2010 by JJxvi

[RedScare]

How is Heights Blvd going to help traffic flow out of Walmart? Who cares whether a portion of the development fronts both Heights and Yale. We are talking about Walmart in this thread, not some yet to be named "chef driven restaurant" that will lease on of the other pads. Nice try, but Heights Blvd is not the issuse. Yale is. Yale is inadequate for the traffic needed. Yale will connect to the feeder via Bass. But that won't get you anwhere as you will have to worm through exiting I-10 traffic just to get to sit at the light at Yale.

Considering that I and my neighbors will drive down Heights, turn right on Koehler, and drive into Walmart without ever getting on Yale, I suspect Heights will help traffic flow a lot. Further, shoppers from Montrose will travel north on Waugh, which turns into Heights, turn left on Koehler, drive into Walmart. AGAIN, no traffic on Yale. Some shoppers from the west will exit I-10 and get to Walmart via Bonner. Some will exit Walmart to the feeder via Bonner. But don't let reality stop your fight against Walmart. It hasn't yet.

Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess.

You make this too easy. The new Walmart at Crosstimbers is not on the feeder road, even though the mailing address is I-45. Best access is via Crosstimbers, coincidentally, a 4 lane road, just like Yale. There is also a Walmart on Sawdust Road in the Woodlands that sits on a 4 lane road just like Yale, that is about a mile from any freeway. It does just fine.

You also need to actually drive around the area and take a look at Yale St.

Isn't this cute. The guy who has lived here a year is telling the guy who has lived in the area for 11 years (and lives closer to the site than he does) that he needs to actually drive around the area and look at Yale Street. You crack me up! How many miles from this site did you say you live, newbie? I can walk to it from my house.

The facts are clear: this is not where you can put a Walmart Supercenter.

Umm....the fact is clear. They already ARE going to put in a Walmart Supercenter.

[SilverJK]

How can someone say in one of their post that just because someone drives on yale it doesn't make t hem an expert, then in the same thread say you need to actually drive on Yale. This implies that S3mh considers their driving on Yale and observing traffic and etc. credible, but not others. Just another facet of your anti-walmart hypocrisy.

I'm still waiting on the answer to this questin, "Why is traffic on Yale a problem for YOU?" Yale (not to mention south of I-10) is easily avoidable for anyone who lives in the Heights. I know you can't possibly be concerned about (non-heights) through traffic... but it would be hilarious to see you use that as your argument.

[JJxvi]

Just take a look at the siting of virtually every other Walmart in Houston. They put them either right on a feeder road that is not in close proximity to a major intersection or numerous signalized intersections (as will be the case with Yale) or with access to two thorough fares with at least four lanes of traffic on one of the two, many times more. This walmart is going to only have a single main driveway to Yale, a street with five signalized intersections in just over a half mile. The freeway access will do nothing to alleviate the traffic because there is no direct access to the feeder. It is will be a complete mess.

You make this too easy. The new Walmart at Crosstimbers is not on the feeder road, even though the mailing address is I-45. Best access is via Crosstimbers, coincidentally, a 4 lane road, just like Yale. There is also a Walmart on Sawdust Road in the Woodlands that sits on a 4 lane road just like Yale, that is about a mile from any freeway. It does just fine.

The 185,000 SF supercenter that they are building outside the loop will be on Silber, a 4 lane road with no median or center lane, and that site is between Westview and the feeder probably about 1000 ft from either one with no access to either except Silber itself. There is also no access/outlet at the rear of the property north south, east, or west. The only way to get to it AT ALL is Silber.

Edited November 24, 2010 by JJxvi

[JJxvi]

Come to think of it, I dont even think you can get to the Silber location from I-10 west. You either have to U-turn or exit the Old Katy/Post Oak exit at the loop.

[barracuda]

1. It is never a waste of time to advocate for what you believe is best for your community. Plenty of Walmarts have been defeated across the country, including two recent examples in Helotes and Spring Valley.

Yes, but in this case the city has already endorsed and thrown their support behind the project, and there is basically zero chance of this changing based on the lack of political interest in thwarting this development that is supported by much of the community.

2. You don't need a lawsuit to stop a Walmart. This development has major problems with traffic and drainage. If the City is held to its promise to "hold the developers feet to the fire", the development may not happen in its current form. But if everyone just walks away and leaves it up to the City, the favors will come pouring in for the developer and Walmart and everything will be rubber stamped. If people are vigilant and organized, then the City may have political cover to put their foot down and take real action that may reduce the size of the Walmart, which would probably send them packing.

Maybe so, but given that this development is moving forward, I'd rather it include infrastructure improvements and amenities like wider sidewalks and more trees that the 380 agreement provides incentives for. If the opposition's activities help put pressure on the city and developer to ensure these improvements are implemented, then I support their efforts. If, however, these activities end up allowing the development to complete without the needed infrastructure improvements or amenities, then it's not really a win-win for anyone.

3. Any attempt at reform will be shot down by the deep pocketed developers. But, if people make developer's lives very difficult every time they come up with a tower or supercenter in a residential/urban neighborhood or whatever stupid and irresponsible development they will come up with next, then developers may see some sort of reform as a better way to do business than to have to deal with all the ill will, delay and expense that comes with each land use fight.

True, there aren't many options for the local community to oppose these projects unless a high-ranking city official takes on the cause. The zero-tolerance perspective of private property rights advocates perplexes me, particularly when applied to large-scale projects that do affect the local community. Even though I don't agree with all your posts, I do agree with your right to voice your opposition, and I'm surprised by the ferocity of some responses to your comments.

[barracuda]

Yeah, with sm3h and that whole stop the Walmart crowd, it's never really been about the traffic or the 380 or walkability or any of the other "issues" they throw around. It's always been about their blatant hatred of Walmart.

Not any other store. Only Walmart. And most of them say they've never been inside one.

I used to never shop Walmart mainly because there wasn't one nearby. It wasn't until HEB stopped carrying so many items that I liked/purchased that I ventured outside the loop to find that hated Arkansas chain. HEB in my area has gotten so bad that they've quit stocking many national brands in favor of their house brands.

And I agree with Red. How can folks in their townhomes (and McVics, imo) claim that Walmart will ruin their 'neighborhood'??

Walmart has a large cross-hair on their back because they are the world's largest retailer and have a somewhat unsavory history. What amazes me is that people are so surprised by this.

[kylejack]

Dirt Bar is open for four more nights, and then it closes to make room for the Walmart.

[ricco67]

Dirt Bar is open for four more nights, and then it closes to make room for the Walmart.

Dirt is gonna die?

Dude, i am REALLY hating walmart more and more.

definitely going to go on their construction site and take a long whizz on the foundation.

[kylejack]

Yeah, New Year's Eve is the last night. They're supposed to re-open, possibly on Caroline, but I don't know where exactly.

[flatline]

Yeah, New Year's Eve is the last night. They're supposed to re-open, possibly on Caroline, but I don't know where exactly.

Across from the House of Blues, in the spot of the former Josephine's Italian restaurant.

[samagon]

Dirt never impressed me paying premium dance club prices for alcohol in a dive bar. I mean, I guess it was an intimate setting to watch really skinny women do coke.

I can't say I will miss it if the Caroline location doesn't pan out.

[barracuda]

Study: When New Walmarts Open, People Get Fatter

http://consumerist.com/2011/01/study-walmart-is-making-people-fatter.html

I'm not going to directly blame Walmart for the obesity epidemic, but it's an interesting study.

[Marksmu]

Study: When New Walmarts Open, People Get Fatter

http://consumerist.c...ple-fatter.html

I'm not going to directly blame Walmart for the obesity epidemic, but it's an interesting study.

Dont even have to read it to discredit it....Its not even indirectly Wal Marts fault. People are responsible for their own weight. Just because you are lazy, dont exercise, and do not want to cook something healthy is not Wal-Marts fault.

For the same price as anything unhealthy that is frequently on sale and located more prominently throughout the store, anyone can buy the big bag of frozen chicken breasts for next to nothing, and some frozen vegetables.

People dont buy healthy, because they have to do more than open the box, or microwave it....they actually have to *GASP* cook something, and then *GASP* clean it up!!! That is not Wal Marts fault....its the idiot who buys the foods fault.

Its ridiculous to post something like that and claim its even indirectly WalMart's fault.

[J008]

Dont even have to read it to discredit it....Its not even indirectly Wal Marts fault. People are responsible for their own weight. Just because you are lazy, dont exercise, and do not want to cook something healthy is not Wal-Marts fault.

For the same price as anything unhealthy that is frequently on sale and located more prominently throughout the store, anyone can buy the big bag of frozen chicken breasts for next to nothing, and some frozen vegetables.

People dont buy healthy, because they have to do more than open the box, or microwave it....they actually have to *GASP* cook something, and then *GASP* clean it up!!! That is not Wal Marts fault....its the idiot who buys the foods fault.

Its ridiculous to post something like that and claim its even indirectly WalMart's fault.

Completely agree that the study is worthless.

Since Walmart has pretty much saturated the suburban \ rural market (hence they have to build stores in inappropriate urban areas) it says more about the culture of sitting in your car for two hours to sit at work for eight hours to sit in your car for two more hours and wondering why there is no time for exercise.

Though simply put, if wal mart does indeed decrease the price of food (which I am not so sure) everything else equal it should increase the quantity demanded.

[DrLan34]

Yeah, New Year's Eve is the last night. They're supposed to re-open, possibly on Caroline, but I don't know where exactly.

I went to this place, I like it a lot, chill crowd. The bouncer said he thinks they will be moving into the former Italian place across from HOB.

[barracuda]

Dont even have to read it to discredit it....Its not even indirectly Wal Marts fault. People are responsible for their own weight. Just because you are lazy, dont exercise, and do not want to cook something healthy is not Wal-Marts fault.

For the same price as anything unhealthy that is frequently on sale and located more prominently throughout the store, anyone can buy the big bag of frozen chicken breasts for next to nothing, and some frozen vegetables.

People dont buy healthy, because they have to do more than open the box, or microwave it....they actually have to *GASP* cook something, and then *GASP* clean it up!!! That is not Wal Marts fault....its the idiot who buys the foods fault.

Its ridiculous to post something like that and claim its even indirectly WalMart's fault.

It's more of a comment on our society and the effect of abundantly cheap, processed foods. Walmart is just one of many enablers. I don't think the goal of the study was to lay fault, but to show correlations in light of the nation's obesity epidemic.

[s3mh]

Dont even have to read it to discredit it....Its not even indirectly Wal Marts fault. People are responsible for their own weight. Just because you are lazy, dont exercise, and do not want to cook something healthy is not Wal-Marts fault.

For the same price as anything unhealthy that is frequently on sale and located more prominently throughout the store, anyone can buy the big bag of frozen chicken breasts for next to nothing, and some frozen vegetables.

People dont buy healthy, because they have to do more than open the box, or microwave it....they actually have to *GASP* cook something, and then *GASP* clean it up!!! That is not Wal Marts fault....its the idiot who buys the foods fault.

Its ridiculous to post something like that and claim its even indirectly WalMart's fault.

It is directly Walmart's fault. But it is much more the fault of big Ag and big grocers. The reason grocery stores are packed with highly processed foods is because they have a very long shelf life. Grocers can pack their shelves to the rim with junky cereals, snacks, sodas and other garbage because they will always sell before they go bad. Add in the corn subsidies, and you get aisle after aisle of cheap garbage. Families on a budget with parents that work multiple jobs or late shifts will buy the processed crap because it won't go bad, it will fill them up for a fraction of the cost of fresh produce and lean meats and doesn't require any preparation time beyond opening the box or popping it in the microwave. Walmart exacerbates this problem by using its buying power to get the best discounts on things like chips, pop tarts and other highly processed junk. Thus, when a family shops at Walmart, they can get junk like chips, soda, pop tarts and frozen crud (hot pockets, pizzas, etc.) for a fraction of the cost as eggs, milk, fresh produce and lean meats. And the junk never has to be thrown out because it went bad, and there is no prep time for junk when the parents are working late and the kids have to make their own food or when parents come home late and don't have time to cook. You can wag your finger at people all day for not exercising and making bad decisions, but that won't do anything to solve the problem.