Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Firebird65]

There will be no fresh arguments, there will be no fresh discussion. This topic has been beaten into the dirt.

Indeed. I am totally bored today at work, so I've spent the day going through about 75% of this thread. What a laugh riot.

Wal-Mart has the absolute right to build this store there. Even the Mayor says so. Of course, he anti-Wal-Marters have every right to protest it. This is America. I don't blame them for doing so. But having read their comments, they sure seem to dance around the real issue of why they don't want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood. It isn't about traffic... it isn't about drainage... it isn't about light pollution. If it was, they'd have protested that Target that went up. I sure don't remember any ruckus about that store being built. And it's not about people working at Wal-Mart only getting 30 hours a week so they don't get health insurance. I once worked for a Target and trust me, Target does the same exact thing. All retailers do.

Nope... these people are clearly just a bunch of snooty, elitist NIMBY's who don't don't like the kind of people Wal-Mart would attract. Not trying to be insulting, but c'mon. The more "issues" they bring up to deflect that notion, the more obvious it becomes.

Actually, if they'd just flat out admit that they don't want Wal-Mart's clientele in their neighborhood rather than dancing around trying to be PC, they'd probably catch a lot less flack, and might actually garner more support from people who would appreciate someone being honest for a change.

Just my humble opinions... worth exactly what you paid for 'em. Thank you for allowing me to post them.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Firebird65

[Jesse]

Nope... these people are clearly just a bunch of snooty, elitist NIMBY's who don't don't like the kind of people Wal-Mart would attract.

If that were true, wouldn't people be saying that they didn't want this Walmart (ie: NIMBY), but didn't mind shopping at other Walmarts?

Personally, I don't shop at any Walmart. I have my reasons which I've stated. I'm just not a fan of the store, and would rather something else go on that spot. However, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I'm sad about it, but my life will go on. I'll probably adjust my driving habits to avoid the area, since ANY business of that size will increase traffic in the area.

Also, to those complaining about the poll: I didn't put it in this thread. Feel free to contact the moderator(s) and have it moved. I also never claimed it was remotely scientific, nor did I cross-post it to the anti-Walmart Facebook page. I wonder if it's been posted to the pro-Walmart Facebook page? :-)

[s3mh]

Indeed. I am totally bored today at work, so I've spent the day going through about 75% of this thread. What a laugh riot.

Wal-Mart has the absolute right to build this store there. Even the Mayor says so. Of course, he anti-Wal-Marters have every right to protest it. This is America. I don't blame them for doing so. But having read their comments, they sure seem to dance around the real issue of why they don't want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood. It isn't about traffic... it isn't about drainage... it isn't about light pollution. If it was, they'd have protested that Target that went up. I sure don't remember any ruckus about that store being built. And it's not about people working at Wal-Mart only getting 30 hours a week so they don't get health insurance. I once worked for a Target and trust me, Target does the same exact thing. All retailers do.

Nope... these people are clearly just a bunch of snooty, elitist NIMBY's who don't don't like the kind of people Wal-Mart would attract.

Actually, if they'd just flat out admit that rather than dancing around trying to be PC, they'd probably catch a lot less flack, and might actually garner more support from people who would appreciate someone being honest for a change.

Just my humble opinions... worth exactly what you paid for 'em. Thank you for allowing me to post them.

I guess you have never been to the Heights and certainly have not taken note of who all is putting up yard signs. The Heights is about as diverse a neighborhood as you will find in Houston. There are trailer parks, low rent apartments, all kinds of garage apartments, houses from 800 sq ft to 4500 sq ft and everything in between. The shopping and restaurants are equally as diverse. People who are adverse to being around people who are in lower income brackets do not move to the Heights. The elitist charge would be fair if it was Bellaire, River Oaks, Tanglewood or West U. But it is just completely out of touch to claim that people who live in the Heights don't want to be around Wal-Mart's main demographic. We already are.

Target went in to a completely different area. Target also came to the community and actively sought out input on how to mitigate the burdens imposed by the project. That won over a lot of people. Wal-Mart did not and has yet to even reveal what it is actually planning to do on the site.

People lobbing the "elitist" bomb just realize that putting a Wal-Mart on Yale is absurd (especially when using tax payer dollars to do infrastructure improvements and with two other locations going up in a 8 mile radius), but do not want to dare go against conservative no-zoning made Houston great dogma.

[Firebird65]

Wal-Mart did not and has yet to even reveal what it is actually planning to do on the site.

I believe this has been mentioned in a similar thread about an HEB in Montrose, but it bears repeating here: Wal-Mart doesn't owe you or anyone else a explanation of what they are doing on the site. Not trying to be a smart###, but that's a simple fact.

Now, whether they ought to include the community in an effort to show themselves as a good neighbor, well, that's a different discussion. But the simple fact is they don't owe you anything. They paid their money, it's their property, they can do what they want with it as long as they follow the law. From here, it looks like they have.

I'm just an outsider who wandered into this thread on an otherwise boring day. Thisd looked like an interesting and topical discussion and it hasn't disappointed. I've got no dog in this hunt, but from an outsider's perspective, the people who are anti-Wal-Mart on this thread come across as people tap dancing and people trying to hide another agenda. If I'm wrong, well... I can only go with and draw my conclusions based on the information and arguments presented here. And from this outsider's perspective, the pro-Wal-Marters have presented a much more compelling and honest argument than the anti-Wal-Marters.

Again, this is my opinion only and it's worth what you paid for it. I thought someone might enjoy an outsider's opinion on this discussion from someone who has nothing to gain or lose from it. If you didn't, that's OK.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Firebird65

[MOpens]

The Heights is about as diverse a neighborhood as you will find in Houston. There are trailer parks, low rent apartments, all kinds of garage apartments, houses from 800 sq ft to 4500 sq ft and everything in between.

So, for this topic you use 4500 sq ft houses to support your positive view of the Heights as diverse, but for the Historic District topic you point to 4500 sq ft houses as a problem for the Heights.

Help me reconcile the two...

Edited August 16, 2010 by MOpens

[J008]

But the simple fact is they don't owe you anything. They paid their money, it's their property, they can do what they want with it as long as they follow the law. From here, it looks like they have.

I do agree that to a large extent you should be able to build whatever you want on your land, but when it comes to rearranging the street grid and adding extensive traffic controls I think the neighborhood \ city government should be consulted if they aren't already required to be.

Not to mention the tax subsidy.

Otherwise I'll stop paying my property tax and install a traffic light in front of my house.

[s3mh]

I believe this has been mentioned in a similar thread about an HEB in Montrose, but it bears repeating here: Wal-Mart doesn't owe you or anyone else a explanation of what they are doing on the site. Not trying to be a smart###, but that's a simple fact.

Now, whether they ought to include the community in an effort to show themselves as a good neighbor, well, that's a different discussion. But the simple fact is they don't owe you anything. They paid their money, it's their property, they can do what they want with it as long as they follow the law. From here, it looks like they have.

I'm just an outsider who wandered into this thread on an otherwise boring day. I've got no dog in this hunt, but from an outsider's perspective, the people who are anti-Wal-Mart on this thread come across as people tap dancing and people trying to hide another agenda. If I'm wrong, well... I can only go with and draw my conclusions based on the information and arguments presented here. And from this outsider's perspective, the pro-Wal-Marters have presented a much more compelling and honest argument than the anti-Wal-Marters.

Again, this is my opinion only and it's worth what you paid for it.

Yes, they paid their money and have the right to build what they want if they are able to get all the needed permits and variances. But they have no right to shake down tax payers for a tax abatement to make the infrastructure improvements needed to cram a suburban style supercenter into an urban neighborhood. And, if they are going to need tax abatements, they damn well need to start talking to the community about what their plans are going to be.

If you think the pro-Wal-Mart arguments are better than anti-Wal-Mart, fine. Enjoy watching the few distinct Houston neighborhoods fall to the big box developments. Keep Houston Ugly! But, do not insult the community with the elitist crap. If you really want to talk about elitism, the idea that the guy with the big wallet gets to decide whether to cram vital thorough fares with traffic, flood residential neighborhoods with run-off, take police away from serving the community to pick up shoplifters three times over the objections of the community is the ultimate in elitism.

[samagon]

I guess you have never been to the Heights and certainly have not taken note of who all is putting up yard signs. The Heights is about as diverse a neighborhood as you will find in Houston. There are trailer parks, low rent apartments, all kinds of garage apartments, houses from 800 sq ft to 4500 sq ft and everything in between.

I actually had to drive through Heights not too long ago (went to Buchanan's, since Teas closed, it's the closest approximation of a neat little nursery that has more than just the standard fare and is inside the loop).

I saw the yard signs in front of a few houses.

Every house I saw that had anti walmart signs had all of the appearances of being well kept. Roofs in good condition, highly cultivated and sculpted yards, nicely kept paint on the exterior. things that I would associate with someone who takes pride in the house they occupy. I doubt any of those people wear spandex when shopping.

I didn't see any anti walmart signs in front of the worn down houses, the garage apartments, or the trailer park.

I must say that I agree 100% with Firebird's assessment of the situation. You've got people who have a polarized view of walmart, thanks to websites like http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ and from their own experiences, they don't particularly want people who wear spandex gathering in large groups around their neighborhood, and I am sure if they had the option to close down the trailer park, and knock down the low income housing so that only affluent people of their tastes could live there, they would do it in a heartbeat.

If the people that lived there weren't bothered by diversity, they wouldn't be spending two or three times as much as it costs to live in other parts of the city that are even more diverse, and in some cases closer to downtown.

No, I'd venture to guess that most of the people who are against this walmart are against it because they don't like people who wear spandex when shopping.

As an aside, does anyone know if the site plans on being a 24 hour walmart?

what's most sad is that the signs littering the yards are more of an eyesore than the walmart will ever be, and if one of my neighbors had them, I'd probably go pull them out in the middle of the night and throw them away.

[J008]

No, I'd venture to guess that most of the people who are against this walmart are against it because they don't like people who wear spandex when shopping.

682 posts and only yours includes any reference to spandex. What is the fixation with spandex? I have seen more spandex at the river oaks kroger than at the Mississippi wal mart I recently visited. I am sure there are plenty of hipster elitisits in spandex right now who are against the wal mart (the petition at antidote being by reference).

[Firebird65]

But, do not insult the community with the elitist crap.

Sounds as if someone is a little touchy. I merely called it as I saw it, from an outsider's perspective. Maybe it hit a little too close to home for you?

I've said the Heights anti-Wal-Marters have every right to protest the Wal-Mart being built in their neighborhood (although technically, it doesn't appear to be in their neighborhood, from the information in one writer's earlier post). I'm not asking them to sit back and take it (and am in no position to do so anyway).

But what I am saying is, that from the viewpoint of someone who knows next to nothing about this debate and only saw it for the first time today, it sure appears the anti-Wal-Marters have some other agenda besides those you mentioned. Those seem more like a smokescreen. Sorry... I'm not trying to be insulting to you or anyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I read 75% of the posts on here (it was that slow a day here at work) and that's the impression I got.

And I get the feeling you're not even going to try to change my impression. That's your choice, of course.

[poyea]

Wal-Mart has the absolute right to build this store there. Even the Mayor says so. Of course, he anti-Wal-Marters have every right to protest it. This is America. I don't blame them for doing so. But having read their comments, they sure seem to dance around the real issue of why they don't want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood. It isn't about traffic... it isn't about drainage... it isn't about light pollution. If it was, they'd have protested that Target that went up. I sure don't remember any ruckus about that store being built. And it's not about people working at Wal-Mart only getting 30 hours a week so they don't get health insurance. I once worked for a Target and trust me, Target does the same exact thing. All retailers do.

Nope... these people are clearly just a bunch of snooty, elitist NIMBY's who don't don't like the kind of people Wal-Mart would attract. Not trying to be insulting, but c'mon. The more "issues" they bring up to deflect that notion, the more obvious it becomes.

Actually, if they'd just flat out admit that they don't want Wal-Mart's clientele in their neighborhood rather than dancing around trying to be PC, they'd probably catch a lot less flack, and might actually garner more support from people who would appreciate someone being honest for a change.

Just my humble opinions... worth exactly what you paid for 'em. Thank you for allowing me to post them.

Well, for me, it actually is about traffic among other things. For one, I don't shop at WalMart and don't care to. Not that I wouldn't or haven't ever, but it just isn't high on my list of places to go if I need something. For me, I'd rather see something go in there that I would actually utilize. And yes, we do drive to HEB fairly often, since it is right next to Costco on I-10. My wife likes the new Kroger, but even Kroger is overpriced and their veggies/fruits are not up to par with HEB, so we hit each about half the time. Elitist? Not so much.

On the traffic argument, compared to Target, there is a huge difference in location. I NEVER drive thru the Target area to get somewhere else, so I am not inconvenienced by the incremental traffic from Target. On the other hand, I drive past the Walmart location every day to go to work, to go to the bank, to go to restaurants on Washington, and as a cut through to other places in the area to the south and west. Every Day. Oh, and I live one block off of Yale, and it is already a speedway on Yale, making a crossing on foot or with dogs a challenge. So, yes, traffic is an issue. Elitist? Not so much.

The one thing that I do believe is that the taxpayers should not be footing any bills of any sort to make WalMart's economics look better. That would apply to HEB, Costco, Target, or anyone else. Make your business model fly on its' own, and don't pretend like you're doing us a favor by offering to re-pave or expand our streets, when we know it's because you can't fit all of your 18-wheelers down the two-lane residential streets.

Soapbox...off.

[AtticaFlinch]

Target went in to a completely different area. Target also came to the community and actively sought out input on how to mitigate the burdens imposed by the project. That won over a lot of people. Wal-Mart did not and has yet to even reveal what it is actually planning to do on the site.

First, Target is in a nearly identical area. Calling it "completely different" is disingenuous at best. Have you seen the place where Walmart wants to build? Fuh realz.

Second, you made up your mind before Walmart had an opportunity to interact with anyone. Wasn't your first post about this on HAIF made before the announcement was even officially made? You've crucified Walmart before they even committed the crime you think they've committed. I guess you come from the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later school of thought. You are more like George W Bush than you could ever realize, especially in light of the tenacity to which you hold onto your arguments despite the evidence to the contrary. I'm sure W is sitting in Crawford right now expecting the news of newly discovered WMDs in Iraq too. Geezus.

But they have no right to shake down tax payers for a tax abatement to make the infrastructure improvements needed to cram a suburban style supercenter into an urban neighborhood.

1) An abatement is not a shakedown. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terminology and learn how this particular project will be affected.

2) There is no cramming. It's a big empty lot with plenty of space for a large development.

3) You have no clue what form of development will take place. You have done nothing to communicate with Walmart and have no idea what this place will look like, have you? You don't know if it's suburban or maybe some new faux urban concept that'll be sure to generate cream in at least a few pairs of shorts. You have no idea. None. You're speaking entirely off conjecture, and you're calling it fact. Why do you have such a blatant disregard for logic when trying to debate something logically? We're not falling for emotions.

If you think the pro-Wal-Mart arguments are better than anti-Wal-Mart, fine. Enjoy watching the few distinct Houston neighborhoods fall to the big box developments. Keep Houston Ugly! But, do not insult the community with the elitist crap. If you really want to talk about elitism, the idea that the guy with the big wallet gets to decide whether to cram vital thorough fares with traffic, flood residential neighborhoods with run-off, take police away from serving the community to pick up shoplifters three times over the objections of the community is the ultimate in elitism.

Good! We're agreed! Let's allow the poor folk decide what's best for themselves and not the landed money in the neighborhood decide what's best for them?

[TheNiche]

On the traffic argument, compared to Target, there is a huge difference in location. I NEVER drive thru the Target area to get somewhere else, so I am not inconvenienced by the incremental traffic from Target. On the other hand, I drive past the Walmart location every day to go to work, to go to the bank, to go to restaurants on Washington, and as a cut through to other places in the area to the south and west. Every Day.

I frequently drive past Target if eastbound I-10 is backed up and I want to take a quick jog over to the Pierce Elevated. Even though the total retail square footage of the Sawyer Heights development is larger than the proposed Wal-Mart, traffic there does not inconvenience me at all. It's the freight trains that inconvenience, as well as the narrow and sloping right lanes of Washington Avenue.

[TheNiche]

I guess you have never been to the Heights and certainly have not taken note of who all is putting up yard signs.

I have. I think that the 'Great White Stroller Mafia' and deeply ashamed closet-Republicans are to blame.

[J008]

It is strange to look at some of the other Wal Marts in Houston and not see some elitism.

This one on Eldgridge and 1960 is backed up against what appears to be a grand gated community with the nice fountains and lakes. There is no connecting road leading from the wal mart into the neighborhood it might as well be considered on the other side of the green zone.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Walmart+Supercenter+1960+eldridge&sll=29.733657,-95.510116&sspn=0.00859,0.019205&ie=UTF8&hq=Walmart+Supercenter+1960+eldridge&hnear=&ll=29.921799,-95.595903&spn=0.008648,0.019205&t=h&z=16

This one in pearland is less drastic but at least from google maps you can see most people have to travel quite a few sleepy hollow drives to find there way to the one road that will lead you to wal mart.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Walmart+Supercenter&sll=29.549007,-95.230522&sspn=0.008605,0.019205&ie=UTF8&t=h&radius=0.69&split=1&rq=1&ev=p&hq=Walmart+Supercenter&hnear=&ll=29.548876,-95.231144&spn=0.009072,0.019205&z=16

Even the dunvale location that backs up against several houses, has no streets directly connecting the neighborhood to the wal mart zone even though they are only yards apart.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Walmart+Supercenter,+2727+Dunvale+Rd,+Houston,+TX+77063-4401&sll=29.550911,-95.231938&sspn=0.018144,0.038409&ie=UTF8&hq=Walmart+Supercenter,&hnear=2727+Dunvale+Rd,+Houston,+Harris,+Texas+77063&ll=29.733471,-95.506618&spn=0.009055,0.019205&t=h&z=16

I didn't look at many others, but from just these three you can see how drastically different the street grid is in the heights from these wal mart neighborhoods.

Again my main complaint against the development isn't wal mart but the alterations to the street grid, dragging Heights Blvd into the whole mix being the most burdensome part.

[samagon]

682 posts and only yours includes any reference to spandex. What is the fixation with spandex? I have seen more spandex at the river oaks kroger than at the Mississippi wal mart I recently visited. I am sure there are plenty of hipster elitisits in spandex right now who are against the wal mart (the petition at antidote being by reference).

Sorry, I had thought that this was the confrontational walmart thread. :-p

Anyway, regardless the attire the people choose to wear, it still seems as though firebird is right.

[barracuda]

Nope... these people are clearly just a bunch of snooty, elitist NIMBY's who don't don't like the kind of people Wal-Mart would attract. Not trying to be insulting, but c'mon. The more "issues" they bring up to deflect that notion, the more obvious it becomes.

Actually, if they'd just flat out admit that they don't want Wal-Mart's clientele in their neighborhood rather than dancing around trying to be PC, they'd probably catch a lot less flack, and might actually garner more support from people who would appreciate someone being honest for a change.

What exactly is so bad about Walmart's clientele? It seems like folks are constantly belittling Walmart shoppers as some kind of underclass that will wreak havoc on the community (with poor fashion sense I presume). There are plenty of retailers in and around the Heights that already cater to folks on a budget. I shop at some of those stores and can't say I've ever had an issue with the clientele. Does Walmart somehow bring the bad seeds out of the woodwork that other retailers don't?

I'd rather this store not be built because another big-box retailer is not high on my list of interests. I feel we are pretty well saturated with them. Besides, pretty much anything I need on a daily basis is already within a couple miles drive. More to the point, I have a problem with Walmart's business practices on a range of issues that were discussed way back in this thread.

The city can't do anything to stop this store from being built, but kudos to the all folks giving Walmart a hard time. The company is slowly adapting to the concerns of such people, so at least that is progress.

[AtticaFlinch]

Besides, pretty much anything I need on a daily basis is already within a couple miles drive.

So... having all these goods in one place will reduce the amount of time spent driving, thereby reducing your carbon footprint?.. This, plus Walmart's efficient distribution network should be Earth postive reason enough to want this place. I bet Walmart's distribution network is greener than many of the mom n pops on 19th.

[TheNiche]

I do agree that to a large extent you should be able to build whatever you want on your land, but when it comes to rearranging the street grid and adding extensive traffic controls I think the neighborhood \ city government should be consulted if they aren't already required to be.

The development of Sawyer Heights required changes to the street grid. Nobody complained then.

[GovernorAggie]

So now the opposition is based on aesthetics? Now we're getting somewhere. Now we're getting to the root of the issue. If aesthetics is the problem, don't you think it's a pretty flimsy reason to oppose the Walmart? Don't you think it would be wiser to work with the design firm to ensure it's built in a way that allows it to fit into the neighborhood rather than simply oppose the inevitable structure?

This.

Reading through this thread, it's clear to me that people ARE trying their best to veil at least some deep feeling against Walmart because it's Walmart. The more pro-active thing would have been to try to get an audience early on in hopes of getting design input. They've done it in other places, why should this location be different. Furthermore, HEB is plopping a store in an even more constrained location, but they seem to have bought everyone's happiness by working with the neighbrhood on potential designs. HEB's coffers is nowhere near that of Walmart's but it will build two of the company's most expensive stores per square foot (Buffalo Speedway and Dunlavy) in unzoned Houston on non-deed restricted plots of land. But the neighborhood around the HEB set the tone by not being as much against HEB as much as they had the attitude that "we heard you were coming, can you please at least build something that fits within this area." Then again, people don't mind HEB. The same approach should be taken with Walmart. I personally think that it will be a visual upgrade to what's already along the south side of the Katy Freeway in that area anyway.

I also answered the poll--"I live within 3 miles of this location and WILL shop at this Walmart." Why? Because Target's items are limited on the things a like to buy--for example my preferred brand of Excedrin. And their prices on items that you can buy at 2 am are better than at CVS or Walgreen's or Kroger. And I liked Walmart's Chinese-made porcelain plates more than I liked Target's (however I did like Target's Chinese-made silverware more than I liked Walmart's).

Edited August 17, 2010 by GovernorAggie

[J008]

The development of Sawyer Heights required changes to the street grid. Nobody complained then.

I agree and I personally don't think the Sawyer development is that great either. Instead of just one big box there are also 2 medium boxes with petco and staples right there. The only traffic control I see is still on sawyer which is still an alteration, but dragging Heights and Yale into the Wal Mart site will be twice the alteration that is on Sawyer.

I would hate to see that development repeated one mile down the street (or now on one continuous feeder road). Still sawyer does not cross washington as a through street and more importantly when sawyer turns into Watson their are some vicious speed bumps on the two lane road which calm or divert any through traffic, Yale and Heights won't have that benefit.

I do silently agree that the comparisons of target as good (or their just different) and wal mart as bad is sort of silly and probably hurts the wal mart opposition as much as anything. In the Mayor's quote she spends as much time addressing concerns as dissmissing the idea that a costco or target should go their instead.

[RedScare]

I agree and I personally don't think the Sawyer development is that great either. Instead of just one big box there are also 2 medium boxes with petco and staples right there. The only traffic control I see is still on sawyer which is still an alteration, but dragging Heights and Yale into the Wal Mart site will be twice the alteration that is on Sawyer.

I would hate to see that development repeated one mile down the street (or now on one continuous feeder road). Still sawyer does not cross washington as a through street and more importantly when sawyer turns into Watson their are some vicious speed bumps on the two lane road which calm or divert any through traffic, Yale and Heights won't have that benefit.

I do silently agree that the comparisons of target as good (or their just different) and wal mart as bad is sort of silly and probably hurts the wal mart opposition as much as anything. In the Mayor's quote she spends as much time addressing concerns as dissmissing the idea that a costco or target should go their instead.

I've really tried to see this from your point of view, but I simply cannot. Yale and Heights will be upgraded to handle the needs of the area, yet you seem to be complaining about that. There is nothing the least bit good or attractive about this 3 block stretch of road, yet it seems that there are people who seem to be suggesting that the crappy pavement is charming too. New concrete with new timed lights is a good thing. Along with those new streets and timed lights will come new sidewalks and landscaping, perhaps suggested by area residents (if they can stop the fear and loathing of Walmart for a few moments). Maybe Heights residents view potholed streets and broken sidewalks as some sort of urban adventure or something. Maybe they see ratty infrastructure as charming and historic. All I know is that the most vocal ones do not seem to even know what it is they are trying to save or why. I call that obstructionism, not preservation of character.

[LookyHere]

This.

Reading through this thread, it's clear to me that people ARE trying their best to veil at least some deep feeling against Walmart because it's Walmart.

The more pro-active thing would have been to try to get an audience early on in hopes of getting design input.

I agree with the 1st statement, especially that it's a deep feeling about Walmart, itself, which is to say not about poor people in general. However in the first several pages posters weren't veiling their dislike of Walmart. Several people openly said they did not like Walmart as a company and then were subjected to long-winded lectures on how ridiculous they were for feeling that way or even attacked on a personal level. They were told that they needed a real reason to dislike Walmart, not their silly political or ethical ones, so they stopped making that argument. More practical, less emotional reasons surfaced: traffic, crime, property values. This still wasn't good enough and posters were repeatedly told that their concerns about these issues aren't valid.

It has been stated before in this thread, but you should never start from a middle ground if middle ground is what you are trying to achieve. If you start in the middle, a corporation like Walmart will negotiate you right back to where they wanted to start from in the 1st place. Intelligent opposition starts at the exact other end of the spectrum and lets Walmart negotiate them to the middle. This is how a lot of people I have spoken with feel.

[little frau]

The development of Sawyer Heights required changes to the street grid. Nobody complained then.

I wondered about that. And, did Target get any tax breaks?

Early on here, the pro folks were talking about the blight left in the wake of a Walmart closing one of their stores. Target has done the same thing. Consider the location at 610 & S. Wayside. There was a nice large Target there which always seemed to be very busy. It was much closer than driving to Almeda Target and I never cared too much for the nearby KMart.

The 610 Target seemed to close abruptly. There were no blogs back then and store closings didn't make the news. Besides, it was only one store, not the entire chain.

That location remained vacant for what felt like years but in reality probably wasn't. I don't want to take the time to look up the year but enter Auchan and their massive remodel. Oops, they didn't last either. Of course, it was a good place to have for the staging area for FEMA following Katrina and the influx of evacuees from coastal Louisiana.

There are other "blights" dotting all of Houston as a result of store closings. All kinds of stores. Not just WalMart.

It's difficult for me to feel sorry for the folks in the Heights if they do get this Walmart built. That location might be a little closer for me than having to drive to Almeda to get the dairy items that I like (which HEB and Fiesta don't carry) but most likely, I'll not be shopping at the Yale Walmart.

[samagon]

It has been stated before in this thread, but you should never start from a middle ground if middle ground is what you are trying to achieve. If you start in the middle, a corporation like Walmart will negotiate you right back to where they wanted to start from in the 1st place. Intelligent opposition starts at the exact other end of the spectrum and lets Walmart negotiate them to the middle. This is how a lot of people I have spoken with feel.

Problem though.

WalMart is not in a position where they need these people to agree with them. If they even see the opposition, they likely see demands (ie don't build, or go somewhere else) as unreasonable, and as such, they think to themselves (or have a meeting in some board room): these people are being unreasonable, and we don't need them on our side to complete this structure, lets not even talk to them.

Whereas, if they were making reasonable 'demands': beautify your structure, or talk about how property value has affected other walmart areas, or what steps you are taking here to ensure that property value will be more positively affected than other locations; work with the city to more efficiently move traffic in a way that won't affect certain habitats; talk about how you will employ security measures and work closely with the city PD to help reduce the potential for crime.

I mean, if the main concerns really are crime, traffic, and property value, then the approach shouldn't be taken that you don't want them to build because of that, the approach should be taken, we want to work with you so that our concerns are addressed. that doesn't mean you're starting in the middle, it just means you are more open for discussion.

although, anyone who is saying anything about the looks, or how walmart will affect their property value are not making any kind of argument that I can understand on any level at all. There is no way they can look anyone in the eye and tell them that the corrugated warehouse wasteland that is Yale south of i-10 is better for their property values than a walmart will be.

Edited August 17, 2010 by samagon

[TheNiche]

I wondered about that. And, did Target get any tax breaks?

Early on here, the pro folks were talking about the blight left in the wake of a Walmart closing one of their stores. Target has done the same thing. Consider the location at 610 & S. Wayside. There was a nice large Target there which always seemed to be very busy. It was much closer than driving to Almeda Target and I never cared too much for the nearby KMart.

The 610 Target seemed to close abruptly. There were no blogs back then and store closings didn't make the news. Besides, it was only one store, not the entire chain.

That location remained vacant for what felt like years but in reality probably wasn't. I don't want to take the time to look up the year but enter Auchan and their massive remodel. Oops, they didn't last either. Of course, it was a good place to have for the staging area for FEMA following Katrina and the influx of evacuees from coastal Louisiana.

There are other "blights" dotting all of Houston as a result of store closings. All kinds of stores. Not just WalMart.

It's difficult for me to feel sorry for the folks in the Heights if they do get this Walmart built. That location might be a little closer for me than having to drive to Almeda to get the dairy items that I like (which HEB and Fiesta don't carry) but most likely, I'll not be shopping at the Yale Walmart.

Quite possibly. Nobody cared one way or the other because that was Target, not Wal-Mart.

Early on here, the pro folks were talking about the blight left in the wake of a Walmart closing one of their stores. Target has done the same thing. Consider the location at 610 & S. Wayside.

...

There are other "blights" dotting all of Houston as a result of store closings. All kinds of stores. Not just WalMart.

610 and S. Wayside is a crap retail location. That's what caused repeated big box vacancies.

Just one thoroughfare over from that used to be a fairly large retail center, the King Market on MLK at 610; it had a 'green roof'; that is to say, trees and grass grew out of it. It also boasted the lowest rents in the entire region. After decades of dereliction, it was finally condemned and demolished.

Remember when Albertson's left the Houston market, leaving dozens of proprietary shells? People exclaimed how difficult it would be for them to be put to re-use. Within a year or so, all but a couple (and those, in crap locations) had found new users...even the one in the Heights. When K-Mart left, the same thing happened.

[LookyHere]

Problem though.

WalMart is not in a position where they need these people to agree with them. If they even see the opposition, they likely see demands (ie don't build, or go somewhere else) as unreasonable, and as such, they think to themselves (or have a meeting in some board room): these people are being unreasonable, and we don't need them on our side to complete this structure, lets not even talk to them.

Whereas, if they were making reasonable 'demands': beautify your structure, or talk about how property value has affected other walmart areas, or what steps you are taking here to ensure that property value will be more positively affected than other locations; work with the city to more efficiently move traffic in a way that won't affect certain habitats; talk about how you will employ security measures and work closely with the city PD to help reduce the potential for crime.

I mean, if the main concerns really are crime, traffic, and property value, then the approach shouldn't be taken that you don't want them to build because of that, the approach should be taken, we want to work with you so that our concerns are addressed. that doesn't mean you're starting in the middle, it just means you are more open for discussion.

although, anyone who is saying anything about the looks, or how walmart will affect their property value are not making any kind of argument that I can understand on any level at all. There is no way they can look anyone in the eye and tell them that the corrugated warehouse wasteland that is Yale south of i-10 is better for their property values than a walmart will be.

Clearly opposition to the project doesn't see it this way. Walmart is hosting a community meeting and hiring PR gurus, so certainly they see some kind of threat. They have been kept out of other communities in Houston and all over the country. The fight for a lot of these people is real.

Yes, there are issues with that area but what I think people hope (and I can only say "think" because I don't live over there and don't know anyone on a personal level who does) that development occurs in an intelligent way, not just a free for all. I do know that the Superneighborhood council has been working with developers and their position currently seems to be one like you suggest. However, it seems residents of that area and the surrounding communities are not willing to settle.

[Gooch]

What exactly is so bad about Walmart's clientele? It seems like folks are constantly belittling Walmart shoppers as some kind of underclass that will wreak havoc on the community (with poor fashion sense I presume).

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?

I think the real issue is the quantity of shoppers...

Yale and Heights will be upgraded to handle the needs of the area, yet you seem to be complaining about that. There is nothing the least bit good or attractive about this 3 block stretch of road, yet it seems that there are people who seem to be suggesting that the crappy pavement is charming too. New concrete with new timed lights is a good thing. Along with those new streets and timed lights will come new sidewalks and landscaping, perhaps suggested by area residents (if they can stop the fear and loathing of Walmart for a few moments). Maybe Heights residents view potholed streets and broken sidewalks as some sort of urban adventure or something. Maybe they see ratty infrastructure as charming and historic. All I know is that the most vocal ones do not seem to even know what it is they are trying to save or why. I call that obstructionism, not preservation of character.

It's disingenuous to suggest that opponents are fond of potholes. Streets can be repaired and retain their character. To suggest otherwise is...

Indeed, there are those that oppose upgrading Heights and Yale. Not because of some perverse affection for potholes but because of the addtional traffic to the neighborhood. To many the relative lack of traffic in the area adds to the quality-of-life. While that isn't a measurable metric, it is important to many in the neighborhood, and the valuation of their property.

Taking this to the illogical end (slippery slope!) .. Would it be reasonable to 6-lane Heights if Walmart paid for it?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Gooch

[totheskies]

Well I'll go ahead and throw in my few cents here...

The Heights is a neighborhood. It is no longer its own independent town. It is a part of the City of Houston, and has every right and responsibility as River Oaks, Fifth Ward and Idylwood.

As a part of the City of Houston, they are not subject to city-wide zoning restrictions, because Houston residents have voted them down... time and time again. Which means Wal-Mart has every right to purchase land and build whatever it wants, wherever it wants. And I'm in agreement with whoever posted earlier... if feeder road enhancements are already occurring, then its a no-brainer that this is a done deal.

IMO the residents are going about this the wrong way. Why not work with Wal-Mart to try and build something like a Marketside store or Neighborhood Market. Since they're already planning a Wal-Mart for I-10 at Silber, this could be a very reasonable request. Wal-Mart may be willing to go with a smaller store model that will cater to the surroundings a bit more. Err well, what y'all think the surroundings are. Last time I checked, the Heights still looked pretty suburban.

[AtticaFlinch]

Taking this to the illogical end (slippery slope!) .. Would it be reasonable to 6-lane Heights if Walmart paid for it?

North of I-10 will never happen. Heights isn't a through street there and is hardly the most convenient north/south street. Plus, in order to do that, street parking and the median park would have to be bulldozed. There's an obvious reaso NOT to do that. South of 10 is a completely different story though. I'm personally more inclined to support added rail, but Heights as a six lane road isn't without precedent. It's already six lanes just north of Memorial (and down south to W Dallas as Waugh Street). Primarily, Heights Boulevard is a connector street from Allen Parkway and Memorial Drive to Washington, and soon to I-10. Traffic on that road will still be light through the Heights proper.