Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Angostura]

1. HEB was interested in the property but was apparently outbid by Wal-Mart. This isn't a question of Wal-Mart or nothing.

2. I would take HEB over Wal-Mart every day. I have personally seen HEB write six and seven figure checks to support local events. Can't say the same about Wal-Mart.

I'd much prefer an HEB on this site to a Walmart, but in order for that to happen either:

a - the property owner would have to accept less for the property than Walmart is offering; or

b - HEB would have to increase their offer.

I have a hard time telling a private property owner that they should have to accept a lower price for their property in order not to offend my sensibilities (be they esthetic, culinary, ethical, political or otherwhise).

I'd have a less hard time hoping HEB would come back with a higher offer. However, I see this as somewhat unlikely due to one inescapable fact. Consider:

- A Walmart supercenter requires +/- 25 acres to be viable. The universe of such sites in the vicinity is limited.

- An HEB requires significantly less space to be viable. Therefore, the universe of sites that suits HEB includes all of those that suit Walmart, PLUS any number of other potential sites.

Therefore, if both Walmart and HEB are interested in developing stores in the area, Walmart should be expected to outbid HEB on any site that suits their (Walmart's) needs, since they have a less attractive "next best alternative". Put another way, HEB would expect to pay less for a site that DOESN'T suit Walmart than one which DOES (since the demand for such a site would be lower). There's therefore no incentive for HEB to get in a bidding war for this site when there are probably acceptable alternatives available.

I fully expect there to be a Heights HEB within the next few years despite the fact that they lost out on this property. I wish it were sooner (I make sure to enter my zip code on the keypad at the checkout line every time I shop at the Bunker Hill store), but neither the property owner nor Walmart have an obligation to assuage my disappointment.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Angostura

[s3mh]

It is still not a character attack. It is still not an ad hominem. How can you speak for poor people unless you are one or have been one? You don't know the lifestyle, and you don't understand the lifestyle. With all likelihood, your understanding of poverty or paycheck-to-paycheck living is something you know from Hollywood or that one time you took a wrong turn into the bad part of town before you got a GPS. That said, there are plenty of people here who gave testament to their personal hardships and those of their family and neighbors and explained that yes, they would like to finally have an inexpensive place to shop for beans and rice nearby.

Edit: Also, after rereading your third point, I have to ask what that has to do with Walmart at all? Walmart sells the product after it's been sold to them, and they'll mark it up based on the price they paid. They don't grow or subsidize the cost of production. That's the government's and agribusiness' fault. You've really missed the mark with your indignation if you blame Walmart for the low cost of processed foods. If you want the price of food to more accurately reflect the true cost of production, you should write a letter to your congressman, not join an anti-Walmart Facebook page.

I know. I've read what they've had to say, and I've come to the conclusion that all arguments given thus far against the construction of this Walmart are nothing more than examples of thinly veiled elitism. For examples see below:

Argument translations:

1) "Walmart will lower my property values." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. Home buyers won't pay a lot of money to live near that sort of stuff."

2) "Walmart increases crime." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. Those people are criminals."

3) "Walmart is bad ethics." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. I will continue to drive my 7 mpg SUV (10 highway! lol!) to my job at the oil conglomerate while eating at Boston Market but latch onto Walmart as if it's the only lil debbil practicing bad ethical judgment because white transh and dark-skinned people unsettle me."

3) "Walmart is more traffic." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. I don't want them to drive the same streets as me. I'll completely ignore that any development on the proprty will increase traffic in order to drive my point home."

I've yet to read a coherent argument in opposition to this Walmart in this thread that does not reek of tyranny and elitism.

And yes, I hate Walmart, but I do compromise on my objections when I can buy a can of baby formula there considerably cheaper than I can anywhere else in this city. Liberal scion Michael Moore, of whom I'm a fan, once pointedly answered an inquiry questioning his values when it was noted that he drove a General Motors automobile (directly after "Roger and Me" hit the screens) with something to the effect of only the rich can afford to base all their decisions on their ethics. I am not rich, and the rich do not speak for me.

A. It certainly is an ad hominem attack now. I have lived paycheck to paycheck, lived on unemployment, and have earned less than the poverty level. When I needed to stretch my dollars, I stayed away from Wal-Mart. The local grocery specials always beat the pants off of Wal-Mart's prices. And close-out stores had much better clothing and housewares than Wal-Mart for the same or less than what Wal-Mart charged for their junk. Now that I make enough money to afford to live in the Heights (in a very small bungalow), I have the right to protect my property values and preserve the unique character of my neighborhood. Wal-Mart threatens that not because of its customer's ethnicity or economic demographic. Wal-Mart threatens the character of the Heights because the Heights is one of the few communities left in this City that doesn't follow the model of unwalkable neighborhoods with strip centers and big box stores.

B. It could be said with equal force of logic that your translation of every argument into a class/race issue is nothing more than your own resentment of those who are successful. The economic fortunes of the economic and racial demographic you champion are directly tied to the ability of Houston to attract businesses to the downtown area. The availablity and quality of inner city neighborhoods for professionals has always been a sore spot when comparing Houston to other cities. The emergence of the Heights, Rice Military and other inner city neighborhoods has done a lot to improve Houston's ability to compete for business investment. Drop a Wal-Mart right in the middle of that and you have now taken a big step backwards. Sure, short term, there will be construction jobs, a few hundred low wage jobs and some cheaper goods for people in the inner loop. In the long run, Houston will lose business to other metropolitan areas because of our inability to wisely control development. In short, Houston can only grow so long as a city where we all just grin and bear it.

C. The food reference is just a demonstration that you can make a fact based argument that something is bad for lower income people without being in the same income bracket.

D. The bottom line to your argument is that Wal-Mart is terrible, but we all have to shut up and deal with it because Wal-Mart (allegedly) saves lower income people a few bucks (or, more specifically, a few minutes in the car). The truth is that the idea of community resistance to Wal-Mart being some sort of class/ethnic elitism or "tyranny" is nothing more than Wal-Mart PR flack. This is a battle between wealthy investors, Wal-Mart execs and shareholders and the people who live in the neighborhood, pay plenty of taxes and want to see development in Houston that is beneficial to all and not just a quick buck for developers and a chance for Wal-Mart execs to take a shot at Target's revenues.

[RedScare]

Now that I make enough money to afford to live in the Heights (in a very small bungalow), I have the right to protect my property values and preserve the unique character of my neighborhood. Wal-Mart threatens that not because of its customer's ethnicity or economic demographic. Wal-Mart threatens the character of the Heights because the Heights is one of the few communities left in this City that doesn't follow the model of unwalkable neighborhoods with strip centers and big box stores.

Given that a Pew Research poll found that 84% of Americans have shopped at Walmart in the past year, and that 138 million Americans shop there every week (60% of the adult population), it is unlikely that potential Heights residents would be offended at a Walmart that is not located within the Heights, but nearby. In fact, a nearby Walmart will likely improve property values, as an overwhelming majority of Americans (69%) hold a favorable view of Walmart. A review of the Target thread on this forum reveals the preference for big box retail stores near, but not within, the Heights by Heights residents. While there are without doubt some vocal opponents of Walmart, their numbers are small, and the number who would not buy a home in the Heights simply because a Walmart is located on the other side of a major freeway is virtually non-existent. Note that I own a house in the Heights that may be put up for sale in the not-to-distant future. The historic district is a much more direct concern than a Walmart over a mile away.

As for strip centers, none of the new strip centers along Washington seem to have hurt property values in the Heights, mostly because, like Walmart, they are not in the Heights. Neither have the big boxes in Sawyer Center.

Sawyer Heights Village is an interesting comparison to Walmart on Yale. When it was proposed, the same concerns about traffic were raised. Studies showed that little extra traffic would travel on Watson through Woodland Heights due to the center, and the last 3 years bear that out. What is even more interesting is that the proposed Walmart is 152,000 square feet, just 28,000 feet bigger than the Target. In fact, the Target, the 28,000 square foot Petsmart, and the 20,000 square foot Staples combined are 15% larger than the proposed Walmart, without even considering the 2 dozen other stores on the property. Traffic concerns are much ado about nothing.

Again, I'm not telling you whether to like Walmart. They aren't my favorite retailer, either. I'm simply pointing out that property value and traffic fears are misplaced. The recession, the oil spill, and the impending loss of new Heights construction are much bigger threats to your property value than Walmart. Remember, there are no less than 3 Walmarts within the Woodlands itself. And that is one of the few growing areas in the metro right now.

[aggie92]

Instead of posting a negative link to how bad Walmart is, I thought it would be good to post a link to the "positive" effects of Walmart.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/researchers-not-buying-the-wal-mart-effect-3970/

My personal favorite result from the study:

"Wal-Mart’s penetration seemed to cause a slight reduction in obesity" - this might mean we don't need the 24 Hour Fitness that has been requested in the past!

However, to be fair it did discuss a negative:

"Wal-Mart penetration leads to people spending less time playing outside and spending more time watching DVDs (and other forms of entertainment they can purchase cheaply from Wal-Mart)."

It should be noted that Walmart did not compensate the professors for the research they did for this article.

One other positive (not related to this article) that hasn't been discussed regarding the outparcels is the possibility for another check cashing store or even another mattress store

[20thStDad]

I've never understood the obsession with HEB, it has ok prices (none of the stores beat the sales at any other with their regular prices, and that's how I shop) but that is generally outweighed by the annoying layout of every store. Anyway, if you want an HEB let's get it actually IN the Heights. Walgreens on 20th/Yale is building a new stand-alone across the street, and that Kroger sucks. So tear that whole thing down and put the HEB there.

[Porchman]

Now that I make enough money to afford to live in the Heights (in a very small bungalow), I have the right to protect my property values and preserve the unique character of my neighborhood. Wal-Mart threatens that not because of its customer's ethnicity or economic demographic. Wal-Mart threatens the character of the Heights because the Heights is one of the few communities left in this City that doesn't follow the model of unwalkable neighborhoods with strip centers and big box stores.

The proposed Wal*Mart, on the edge of the Heights does not challenge the walkability or uniqueness of the Heights, no more than Target and Home Depot have.

What makes the Heights a truly special neighborhood is a sense place. Some of that sense is built on front porches and neighbors being engaged with each other. Some of that sense is built on cool, little shops and great restaurants. In all of this, place needs foundation. That foundation is built on a sense of understanding, and for those of us who live here, self-deprecation.

We, in the Heights, are very privileged to live here. Still, we are Houstonians. We are subject to Houston’s benefits and to its issues. Our foundation becomes weak if we are ignorant of those issues.

Kudos to those who slam people in the Heights for provincial attittudes. I think a butt-kicking is good. (Mrs. Porchman does that for me on a regular basis^_^ ). Kudos to those in this neighborhood, who object to this project on multiple levels, and who, in other forums,are trying to create more constructive conversation about this issue.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Porchman

[KinkaidAlum]

I am late to this thread but just finished reading it.

I have never lived paycheck-to-paycheck. I've never lived under the poverty line. I won the lottery at birth and have been afforded all sorts of great advantages in my life time.

That said, I've never shopped at Wal-mart. Not because I am a snob, but because I am unapologetically opposed to their corporate policies. You can call me an elitist or just lucky to be able to afford to make such decisions, but I don't give a rat's poopy head.

What I do care about is the greater well being of our City and World. You may disagree with me, but it is my opinion that Wal-Marts create more harm than good at the end of the day. Oh, and don't tell me to cite something. It's super easy to do a google search. There's lots of information out there. Besides, I base most of my opinion on personal experience when Wal-Mart moved just OUTSIDE (to avoid taxes) of the city limits of my small college town into an unincorporated section of Ontario County.

[heights]

I've never understood the obsession with HEB, it has ok prices (none of the stores beat the sales at any other with their regular prices, and that's how I shop) but that is generally outweighed by the annoying layout of every store. Anyway, if you want an HEB let's get it actually IN the Heights. Walgreens on 20th/Yale is building a new stand-alone across the street, and that Kroger sucks. So tear that whole thing down and put the HEB there.

I remember when there was an HEB store IN THE HEIGHTS. And what happened? People didn't shop there so HEB tore it down and someone built (another) bank with a reserved parking space for each and every one of its customers.

[VicMan]

I remember when there was an HEB store IN THE HEIGHTS. And what happened? People didn't shop there so HEB tore it down and someone built (another) bank with a reserved parking space for each and every one of its customers.

How many years ago was that? Things can change, and what is once unattractive may become attractive, or vice versa.

[dbigtex56]

I remember when there was an HEB store IN THE HEIGHTS. And what happened? People didn't shop there so HEB tore it down and someone built (another) bank with a reserved parking space for each and every one of its customers.

I know... when I tried to open an account I was told:

"I'm sorry, sir, we're not accepting new customers, because we've already reserved all of our parking spaces. Bank elsewhere."

j/k

Seriously, that bank must have darn few customers or one enormous parking lot.

[tanith27]

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100706-heights-business-owners-nervous-about-walmart

[AtticaFlinch]

A. It certainly is an ad hominem attack now.

That was actually an attempt at levity. Sorry my joke fell flat and you took it personally.

I have lived paycheck to paycheck, lived on unemployment, and have earned less than the poverty level. When I needed to stretch my dollars, I stayed away from Wal-Mart. The local grocery specials always beat the pants off of Wal-Mart's prices. And close-out stores had much better clothing and housewares than Wal-Mart for the same or less than what Wal-Mart charged for their junk. Now that I make enough money to afford to live in the Heights (in a very small bungalow), I have the right to protect my property values and preserve the unique character of my neighborhood. Wal-Mart threatens that not because of its customer's ethnicity or economic demographic. Wal-Mart threatens the character of the Heights because the Heights is one of the few communities left in this City that doesn't follow the model of unwalkable neighborhoods with strip centers and big box stores.

Is Target a box store? Is Target in the Heights? Are there really no strip malls in the Heights? C'mon, man, I can see your hyperbole showing.

B. It could be said with equal force of logic that your translation of every argument into a class/race issue is nothing more than your own resentment of those who are successful. The economic fortunes of the economic and racial demographic you champion are directly tied to the ability of Houston to attract businesses to the downtown area. The availablity and quality of inner city neighborhoods for professionals has always been a sore spot when comparing Houston to other cities. The emergence of the Heights, Rice Military and other inner city neighborhoods has done a lot to improve Houston's ability to compete for business investment. Drop a Wal-Mart right in the middle of that and you have now taken a big step backwards. Sure, short term, there will be construction jobs, a few hundred low wage jobs and some cheaper goods for people in the inner loop. In the long run, Houston will lose business to other metropolitan areas because of our inability to wisely control development. In short, Houston can only grow so long as a city where we all just grin and bear it.

I don't resent people who are successful. By most standards used to measure success, I'm successful. I'm not rich, but I'm certainly not poor. I am also pragmatic, almost to a fault, and my interpretation of the arguments put forth in this thread against the Walmart is based on the fact those arguments are super-dooper flimsy and easily refutable. Every single one of those arguments has been roundly demolished, yet those opposed to the Walmart continue to make them. I grant you my interpretation of the underlying gist of the arguments may be wrong, but something other than the stated reasons are what's really driving the opposition. As it is, I think most members of our society hide deep-seated anthropologically appropriate fear of "others". We just find ways to justify our fears and hatred under the guise of do-gooderness in this modern era where such basic biological conceits aren't welcome.

C. The food reference is just a demonstration that you can make a fact based argument that something is bad for lower income people without being in the same income bracket.

I can make all sorts of irrelevant analogies. Irrelevant analogies don't strengthen my argument.

D. The bottom line to your argument is that Wal-Mart is terrible, but we all have to shut up and deal with it because Wal-Mart (allegedly) saves lower income people a few bucks (or, more specifically, a few minutes in the car).

No. I enumerated my argument earlier. You even quoted it and replied to it (sort of). Here it is again, copy/pasted from above, so as to be clear: "1) the inherent hypocrisy of those who've singled out Walmart for their corporate misconduct while giving a pass to other, equally vile corporations and 2) the inherent hypocrisy of those who don't live paycheck to paycheck speaking for those who do."

This is my argument. If you dislike Walmart, fine. Don't shop there. Write your congressman (or run for congress) to change the laws that allow Walmart to operate the way they do. Go out and fix the real problem and I'll support your efforts. But spare me the sanctimonious BS about Walmart's naughty corporate ethics if you're cool with all the other corporations in the city doing the exact same unethical things, and please stop speaking for the poor, or their best interests, as the reasons you've given for your opposition are selfish and not remotely for the benefit of the unwashed masses.

The truth is that the idea of community resistance to Wal-Mart being some sort of class/ethnic elitism or "tyranny" is nothing more than Wal-Mart PR flack.

Then please make an attempt to clarify what underlies the opposition. If traffic, crime, property values and unethical corporate practices are all canards, then what's the real reason, if not elitism and tyranny? Racism? No one likes that dirty word around here.

This is a battle between wealthy investors, Wal-Mart execs and shareholders and the people who live in the neighborhood, pay plenty of taxes and want to see development in Houston that is beneficial to all and not just a quick buck for developers and a chance for Wal-Mart execs to take a shot at Target's revenues.

You know this property isn't on Yale and 15th, right? You keep talking about the people in the neighborhood as if this Walmart will actually be in the Heights.

Oh, and by the way, poor people in Houston also pay taxes in Houston. The Heights is a neighborhood in Houston. It is not its own city. If Heights residents were the only people who paid taxes, more specifically if Heights residents opposed to this Walmart were the only people who paid taxes in Houston, then maybe your justification would have merit. As it is, Heights residents aren't the only taxpayers in the city and therefore don't have any ability to dictate the development outside their little bubble.

And one other thing, going back to your first paragraph, so many people in the neighborhood talk about their "right" to protest for whatever reason given, but very few people who talk of these "rights" seem to realize that the "rights" granted to them are also extended to everyone else in our city, including the landowner and including the developers and including the executives at Walmart.

[Angostura]

http://www.myfoxhous...s-about-walmart

Thanks for the link, but I suspect that if a bead vendor on 19th Street goes out of business, it won't be because Walmart moved in.

I'm not sure if the reporter has actually ever seen a map of Houston. The proposed Walmart site is about 2 miles from 19th St, and across across a 10-lane freeway. That's about the same as the distance between the Galleria and River Oaks Blvd.

[mcook2002]

Oh, and by the way, poor people in Houston also pay taxes in Houston.

yes they do?

i love reading your responses, especially since you DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS.

[Jesse]

I wonder what this discussion would be like if Wallyworld announced it was opening a supercenter in or very close to River Oaks. Or across the street from the Galleria mall (old CompUSA building, anyone?). Or Tanglewood. Or ___{insert affluent neighborhood name here} ___?

[Jesse]

Thanks for the link, but I suspect that if a bead vendor on 19th Street goes out of business, it won't be because Walmart moved in.

I'm not sure if the reporter has actually ever seen a map of Houston. The proposed Walmart site is about 2 miles from 19th St, and across across a 10-lane freeway. That's about the same as the distance between the Galleria and River Oaks Blvd.

My neighborhood hardware store where I grew up went out of business because Home Depot opened up SIX miles away. The guy had been there for 30 years, and in 6 months lost so much business he was forced to shut his doors.

When you're talking a 152,000 square foot store (plus warehouse, plus parking), 2 miles isn't that far.

[AtticaFlinch]

yes they do?

i love reading your responses, especially since you DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS.

Only Heights residents can use this Walmart? When I lived in Montrose, I used the Target all the time, and sometimes I still go by there if it's convenient to pick something up.

Oh, and by the way, WALMART ISN'T BUILDING IN THE HEIGHTS. So it really doesn't matter where I live. Thanks for exemplifying my point about elitism though.

[mcook2002]

Only Heights residents can use this Walmart? When I lived in Montrose, I used the Target all the time, and sometimes I still go by there if it's convenient to pick something up.

Oh, and by the way, WALMART ISN'T BUILDING IN THE HEIGHTS. So it really doesn't matter where I live. Thanks for exemplifying my point about elitism though

I also forgot how to point out how amazing you are at reading minds. I think what i enjoy the most about internet forum discussions is the fact that people can read so well into a few lines of text to know EXACTLY what someone is thinking. Absolutely amazing. You lumped me into the elitist crowd after reading one post and i am starting to think you are clearly related to Miss Cleo.

Anyone, even people who are practically in Dallas, can shop at any walmart or any store they want. Although there are plenty of suburban Walmarts that are closer to you that you might feel better about patronizing being how socially conscious you seem to be.

This thread is about a discussion where Walmart, may or may not be building in an area that to most people is well known as the "greater heights" area of our city. I know you are not that naive and spout plenty of real estate isms day after day, so this shouldn't be a surprise - yes, most of us understand its not in THE HEIGHTS, just like Target or "Sawyer Heights" isn't either. You also understand that branding/marketing is very important for business to survive and LOCATION immensely more important. This will be the Walmart (Super or Neighborhood) located in the Houston Heights.

[AtticaFlinch]

I also forgot how to point out how amazing you are at reading minds. I think what i enjoy the most about internet forum discussions is the fact that people can read so well into a few lines of text to know EXACTLY what someone is thinking. Absolutely amazing. You lumped me into the elitist crowd after reading one post and i am starting to think you are clearly related to Miss Cleo.

Anyone, even people who are practically in Dallas, can shop at any walmart or any store they want. Although there are plenty of suburban Walmarts that are closer to you that you might feel better about patronizing being how socially conscious you seem to be.

This thread is about a discussion where Walmart, may or may not be building in an area that to most people is well known as the "greater heights" area of our city. I know you are not that naive and spout plenty of real estate isms day after day, so this shouldn't be a surprise - yes, most of us understand its not in THE HEIGHTS, just like Target or "Sawyer Heights" isn't either. You also understand that branding/marketing is very important for business to survive and LOCATION immensely more important. This will be the Walmart (Super or Neighborhood) located in the Houston Heights.

What does any of this have to do with my ability to have an opinion on this topic?

Because that's what I was responding to.

[mcook2002]

absolutely nothing. you are more then welcome to post your opinion all day long, as you freely do now. just let someone else have an opinion too without point counter pointing them all day long. you either don't care or completely ignore the simple fact that this is in someones "back yard", while ignoring or not caring that that yard isn't yours.

[AtticaFlinch]

absolutely nothing. you are more then welcome to post your opinion all day long, as you freely do now. just let someone else have an opinion too without point counter pointing them all day long.

So... don't discuss in a discussion room...

Maybe you'd be more amenable to my presence if my position reflected your own?

you either don't care or completely ignore the simple fact that this is in someones "back yard", while ignoring or not caring that that yard isn't yours.

Likewise. Realize you are not the only person affected by this Walmart. This thing will affect everyone within the loop, of which I was a resident until very recently, and not just you, and not just your Heights neighbors. You've seemed to have forgotten about everyone else this will affect in your zeal to keep the Heights pure and free of corporate imperialism (or whatever).

Oh, and I have a Walmart in my backyard. It's at least as close to my backyard as this Walmart is likely to be to your backyard. But again, what does this have to do with my ability to have an opinion on the topic?

[Angostura]

My neighborhood hardware store where I grew up went out of business because Home Depot opened up SIX miles away. The guy had been there for 30 years, and in 6 months lost so much business he was forced to shut his doors.

When you're talking a 152,000 square foot store (plus warehouse, plus parking), 2 miles isn't that far.

Distance needs to be put in context of density. We have both a Home Depot and a Lowe's bordering the Heights, and stores like C&D and Buchanan's are still around. (Have you ever tried going to Buchanan's on a Saturday in March? Packed.) It's very difficult to compete with Walmart on price. Smart businesses find other ways (selection, service, ambience, etc.). If Heights residents truly value the small businesses in their neighborhoods (that is, enough to actually buy things from them), then these small businesses have nothing to fear from Walmart.

But even if it were the case that Walmart would put half the stores on 19th street out of business, asking the city to impede the construction of a Walmart on this basis is to advocate that the government interfere with one company in order to benefit another. Either so that HEB could get the site at below market price, or so that other businesses can continue to charge above market prices for their goods. Bureaucratic interfere in the free market with the intent to benefit one company over another is often called cronyism.

As much as I'd prefer something else on that site, I can't condone these kinds of methods to prevent Walmart from building here. If Walmart can be convinced to go away of their own accord, so be it. But the talk of getting the city involved is the kind of meddling with the property rights of others that strikes me as distasteful.

[s3mh]

There will be plenty of government intervention on behalf of Wal-Mart (feeder road, piles of variances needed, increased demand on water, sewer, electrical grid, police and fire). All of that will cost tax dollars. Tax payers have every right to have a say on land use issues. We live in a democracy, not a plutocracy.

I just saw on the Free Press website that Wal-Mart is also planning a store at I-45 and Crosstimbers. That would mean that people living from about 20th st. northward in the Heights will either be closer to that location or have better highway access by either just hopping on 45 or 610-45 rather than rolling along at 35 mph through the Heights. For those south of 20th, we are talking about a difference of a mile or two between the two locations. Thus, this whole argument about depriving low income people of a convenient Wal-Mart location is simply crocodile tears. The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers. This is just about Wal-Mart using its corporate largesse to cram an unwanted, unneeded store down our throats so they can take a shot at Target's market share. I would bet that the revenues for a Yale store would not come close to stores in the burbs. I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

[Jesse]

Distance needs to be put in context of density. We have both a Home Depot and a Lowe's bordering the Heights, and stores like C&D and Buchanan's are still around. (Have you ever tried going to Buchanan's on a Saturday in March? Packed.) It's very difficult to compete with Walmart on price. Smart businesses find other ways (selection, service, ambience, etc.). If Heights residents truly value the small businesses in their neighborhoods (that is, enough to actually buy things from them), then these small businesses have nothing to fear from Walmart.

But even if it were the case that Walmart would put half the stores on 19th street out of business, asking the city to impede the construction of a Walmart on this basis is to advocate that the government interfere with one company in order to benefit another. Either so that HEB could get the site at below market price, or so that other businesses can continue to charge above market prices for their goods. Bureaucratic interfere in the free market with the intent to benefit one company over another is often called cronyism.

As much as I'd prefer something else on that site, I can't condone these kinds of methods to prevent Walmart from building here. If Walmart can be convinced to go away of their own accord, so be it. But the talk of getting the city involved is the kind of meddling with the property rights of others that strikes me as distasteful.

True. I think it's a very slippery slope. At what point is a business "too big"? If a 2nd gardening shop opened up across the street from Buchanan's, would we scream and yell that it was destroying a local business? Who is to say that any business doesn't have the right to make money?

That being said, I personally don't like WalMart. I have my reasons. I choose not to shop there. I would prefer that something else go on that lot, or even nothing at all (but then, who is to say that the landowner doesn't have the right to make money by selling it? Again, slippery slope).

What's happening here is people have an opinion about WalMart, and let's assume that the most vocal people are the opponents. Opinions are opinions, and by definition aren't necessarily shared by everyone. On the other hand, WalMart has the legal right to investigate opening a store there. What will now happen is the people with opinions will try to stretch/bend/twist the law to back up their opinions (ie: show why WalMart does not have the legal right to build there). That's not a bad thing, that's what laws were designed to do - to be flexible with the situation. WalMart also has the legal right to stretch/bend/twist the law to defend themselves, and show that they can and will build a store there.

Who has the better lawyers? History shows that WalMart probably does, as most neighborhood blockades of WalMarts seem to fail (I have no hard evidence of this, fyi).

In my opinion, I hope the people who oppose Wallyworld win this one, and WalMart looks elsewhere.

All: May I suggest we try and stay on topic a bit more, and leave the personal attacks at the door? They're quite boring to read.

[Jesse]

I just saw on the Free Press website that Wal-Mart is also planning a store at I-45 and Crosstimbers.

...

The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers.

You could turn that around, and say that they should dump the 45/Crosstimbers store, keep the Yale/10 store, and directly compete with Target across the road.

I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

What other WalMarts have closed? Honestly, I can't picture any locations that used to be a store but have since shut their doors.

[Jesse]

This just in....

http://swamplot.com/mayor-parker-to-walmart-start-talking/2010-07-07/

[sevfiv]

I *think* there are two dumped Wal-Mart locations in/near Dickinson (or maybe Texas City) - iirc, Wal-Mart moved to different locations and the old ones are still empty. I'll do some snooping on that to confirm.. Meanwhile - does anyone recall what I'm referencing?

[Angostura]

I just saw on the Free Press website that Wal-Mart is also planning a store at I-45 and Crosstimbers. That would mean that people living from about 20th st. northward in the Heights will either be closer to that location or have better highway access by either just hopping on 45 or 610-45 rather than rolling along at 35 mph through the Heights. For those south of 20th, we are talking about a difference of a mile or two between the two locations. Thus, this whole argument about depriving low income people of a convenient Wal-Mart location is simply crocodile tears. The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers. This is just about Wal-Mart using its corporate largesse to cram an unwanted, unneeded store down our throats so they can take a shot at Target's market share. I would bet that the revenues for a Yale store would not come close to stores in the burbs. I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

There are two Krogers in the Heights. And two Fiestas.

In addition to the Heights, the Yale Walmart would also serve customers from the area south of I-10, East of 610, and north of US-59 (Rice Military, Montrose, etc.). The Crosstimbers store would not serve those neighborhoods as well as the Yale location would.

The entity best placed to decide whether or a Walmart on Yale St. location is economically viable is Walmart. First, because they're likely to have more and better data and analysis on this issue. Second, and more importantly, they have a larger economic incentive to be right. We all seem to think that HEB would be likely to do well in that spot, and Walmart apparently thinks that they can do even better (given that they're willing to pay more for the land).

[mcook2002]

Maybe you'd be more amenable to my presence if my position reflected your own?

You are really not as good at this as you think you are. Let me try to express my feelings rather then you glean them from my comments.

I think your presence is wonderful. You add heaps of value to this forum, in some weird way. So do the NIMBY elitist Heights residents, in their own odd way as well.

I also fully understand that walmart will change the world for all of us inner loopers. No where did I post otherwise. I have never said i don't like or don't want walmart to build on this site. I have not forgotten about everyone else and have not stated as such. you moved near the walmart in your backyard, perhaps you forgot that.

what i am asking of you, and i should have just typed this in the first place, is to let go a little. you are more then entitled to your opinion, but so are the elitests. So are the area residents that dont have a computer (so they cant post on forums all day) and now have a 180 degree better view towards life since they can (if its ever built) shop for cheaper "needs" at wallyworld! I wasnt attacking your ability to have and post an opinion, just asking for a little neighborly love.

[Jesse]

You are really not as good at this as you think you are. Let me try to express my feelings rather then you glean them from my comments.

I think your presence is wonderful. You add heaps of value to this forum, in some weird way. So do the NIMBY elitist Heights residents, in their own odd way as well.

I also fully understand that walmart will change the world for all of us inner loopers. No where did I post otherwise. I have never said i don't like or don't want walmart to build on this site. I have not forgotten about everyone else and have not stated as such. you moved near the walmart in your backyard, perhaps you forgot that.

what i am asking of you, and i should have just typed this in the first place, is to let go a little. you are more then entitled to your opinion, but so are the elitests. So are the area residents that dont have a computer (so they cant post on forums all day) and now have a 180 degree better view towards life since they can (if its ever built) shop for cheaper "needs" at wallyworld! I wasnt attacking your ability to have and post an opinion, just asking for a little neighborly love.

Maybe I'm missing the tongue-in-cheek aspect of this (and if I am, please tell me... emotion is hard to convey via text), but I don't think you need to call Heights residents "elitist". I am a Heights resident, and I don't think I'm elitest in any way. If you believe so, please tell me and we can discuss. Otherwise, let's see some of that neighborly love