Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[TheNiche]

None of you guys talk about poor people having access to good quality foods. Walmart certainly does not provide that. Walmart certainly does not educate the people on how much hormone and anti-bodies are put into USDA beef or chicken (enough to be banned in Canada and Europe). That is a whole another topic. All I want to say on this is that poor people are not blind lemmings that go for cheapest mass produced foods.

Much of your argument has already been made; I have pre-chewed and regurgitated it for your consumption elsewhere on this thread. If you desire to participate meaningfully, all you have to do is read.

As for hormones, anti-bodies, genetically-modified foods, etc.: I think that those things are awesome. They allow for a higher rate of nutritional yield per unit of land or feedstocks (i.e. food for cattle, diesel for farm equipment, etc.), meaning that more meat can be derived from fewer pastures or grain-producing acreage and less energy consumption. Less demand for agricultural land means that 1) the cost of land for a new farm is lower, feeding back into lower agricultural prices, 2) fewer pesticides, fertilizers, and less animal excrement flowing into our streams, 3) more land available for human habitation or reforestation or to return to the native landscape, 4) an increased carrying capacity of the planet Earth, and 5) better fed, healthier, smarter, poor people the world over (and yes, good nutrition boosts IQ). Agricultural energy consumption is also significant, and anything that can offset agricultural energy demand results in lower energy prices, less pressure on our infrastructure, and cleaner air. Humanists, environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and fiscal conservatives should all be able to get on the same page about this.

And I completely agree that poor people are not lemmings; that's why Wal-Mart is a successful business model in spite of all the propaganda against them.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

I, too, feel compelled to go public with this message. Since you don't live in the Heights, why don't you take your crunchy-tastic, holier-than-thou, self-righteous and judgemental attitude, drag Niche along with you, and worry about something in your own soul-less and character-less neighborhoods. I, too, am really, really glad you didn't buy a house here. I worked my butt off to pay my way through college, worked in an incredibly male-dominated, chauvinistic industry, kicking a** I might add, and postponed having kids until I was in my early thirties so that I could provide for my kids in a way that would make their lives easier for them, as well as take these years a bit easier for myself. And, oh by the way, this also includes working at and volunteering for many not-for-profits (that I am betting with a name like "Crunchtastic" you support) in an effort to give others better breaks than life has already brought them. My husband works his butt off to provide for his family and maintian the ability to give to the causes of his choice. Why should we feel guilty about lunch with our friends, play dates, going to the gym, or whatever the hell we want to do or attitude we want to have if it is not hurting anyone else. My priorities are not misplaced. My kids wear what they want to wear, and if that includes multiple tutus with a frigging fireman hat, I am glad they are not worried about what some jaded ninny's opinions are.

I'm not going to apologize for wanting an H-E-B over a Wal-Mart. The H-E-B will hire the same, or more, people than the Wal-Mart, take better care of them and the neighborhood, and provide a better product that is still within the budget of people who shop at Wal-Mart. Accept that lower-income families deserve access to good quality at good prices, and, just like high-income families, they know the difference.

For all you know, I may be one of the ones physically campaigning against Wal-Mart. You bet I started this thread to create public awareness and hopefully protests. I feel like Mr. Burns from The Simpsons, rubbing my hands together while saying, "Exxxxcellent."

You go girl!

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

We've already established that HEB is actively seeking other sites for development in your neighborhood, but if HEB had outbid Wal-Mart then Wal-Mart probably would have given up on this market altogether for lack of suitably large and high-visibility sites. Clearly having both is better than having just one, so we should each be able to agree that this was a preferable outcome.

So your evidence is a Realtor going on county tax values and unsourced anecdotes? Give me a break. You wouldn't accept that kind of spiel at face value if you were thinking of using that guy to sell your house.

Besides, Spring Valley can afford to be provincial because it's small with a relatively homogeneous constituency. You're talking about the City of Houston, which has never fought a Wal-Mart at any other location; why should it fight one now, just because it's at your doorstep (kind of, but not really)?

What makes your neighborhood such a special case and Northline Commons less special? Could it be...those icky-looking brown people? Oh, no. Of course not. I wouldn't dare imply racism. So what is it, yankee? Why does the West End deserve a break in precedent? Why should the City of Houston ignore the vast number of constituents that would benefit from a Wal-Mart at this location? And...just to appease a small contingent of whiny people that can't just live and let live.

(Yawn)....give it a rest - Yankee doesn't live near Northline Commons, which I have heard is a done deal and the UFCW (union) has been contacted about that store.

Edited July 4, 2010 by CleaningLadyinCleveland

[TheNiche]

Give it a rest - Yankee doesn't live near Northline Commons, which I have heard is a done deal and the UFCW (union) has been contacted about that store. Go get a blog (or a job).

Are you claiming that the validity of all these anti-Wal-Mart arguments is inversely proportional to the distance from any given individual's house? That wouldn't be very intellectually honest.

And btw, I'll take your demand that I leave as an invitation to stay; if you want me gone that badly, it probably means that I've been effective at advancing my position.

[barracuda]

There are some, such as myself, who embrace "live and let live" as a guiding principle, and that have faith in the consumer's ability to discern the equilibrium between quality and price that is appropriate for their personal circumstance. Then there are the stroller-wielding neo-fascists, narcissists, closet racists, classists, reactionaries, NIMBYs, BANANAs, and dumbasses that believe that they know better for everybody without exception. Pick your camp.

Unfortunately Walmat does not share your "live and let live" philosophy. They have a history of extreme business models that encourage human rights abuses, unequal pay for men and women for the same job, locking employees in stores overnight, retaliating and firing employees when they call in sick even with a doctor's note, censoring and banning for sale from their stores any CDs, books, or movies which might cause one of their shoppers to have an independent thought, and leaving employees without health insurance so they are forced to rely on society for government healthcare programs or emergency visits.

I think you should be able to pick a side based on moral issues and societal issues without being labeled derogatory terms. That doesn't really add value to the conversation. I'm not going to personally attack someone for dismissing legitimate and well-known concerns about the company; I understand that we all have different moral boundaries and values and some may assume that capitalist system should just take care of itself, despite repeated evidence that capitalist firms will instead abuse their people and the environment without proper monitoring and safeguarding from external forces.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

Are you claiming that the validity of all these anti-Wal-Mart arguments is inversely proportional to the distance from any given individual's house? That wouldn't be very intellectually honest.

And btw, I'll take your demand that I leave as an invitation to stay; if you want me gone that badly, it probably means that I've been effective at advancing my position.

I didn't tell you to leave - you seem to be very prone to blogging and have the time (?) and talk about maybe working at one of the new Wal-Marts since you don't have a job....

Oh and you haven't been effective or affective in "advancing your position". I don't think you've changed my mind or enlightened me in any way, shape or form (and perhaps others). You are not the protagonist in this thread....(yawn)

Edited July 4, 2010 by CleaningLadyinCleveland

[barracuda]

As for hormones, anti-bodies, genetically-modified foods, etc.: I think that those things are awesome. They allow for a higher rate of nutritional yield per unit of land or feedstocks (i.e. food for cattle, diesel for farm equipment, etc.), meaning that more meat can be derived from fewer pastures or grain-producing acreage and less energy consumption. Less demand for agricultural land means that 1) the cost of land for a new farm is lower, feeding back into lower agricultural prices, 2) fewer pesticides, fertilizers, and less animal excrement flowing into our streams, 3) more land available for human habitation or reforestation or to return to the native landscape, 4) an increased carrying capacity of the planet Earth, and 5) better fed, healthier, smarter, poor people the world over (and yes, good nutrition boosts IQ). Agricultural energy consumption is also significant, and anything that can offset agricultural energy demand results in lower energy prices, less pressure on our infrastructure, and cleaner air. Humanists, environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and fiscal conservatives should all be able to get on the same page about this.

And I completely agree that poor people are not lemmings; that's why Wal-Mart is a successful business model in spite of all the propaganda against them.

The yield per unit of land has gone up due to modern agriculture, but the nutritional value of the food itself has gone down due to use of monocultures. Hormones and antibiotics are part of an industrial farming process that is undoubtedly cruel to the animals subject to it, and their extensive use poses a serious concern human health, as the slow dose of antibiotics in the human diet renders those medicines useless as harmful bacteria evolve and become immune.

As for GMOs specifically, I'm not against them, although there are unforeseen consequences, much of it unintentional but nonetheless concerning. Pollen spreading in the air from B.t. corn has shown to cause high mortality rates among monarch butterflies, an important species for the pollination in the plant world. I also have a hard time supporting the patenting of genetic material and then suing nearby farmers who just happened to have GM seeds blow into their farm.

But back to Walmart and the quality if their food....it should be noted that they did make a commitment to sell more organic products a few years ago. This has the positive impact of increases the amount of land being used for organic farming and making those products more affordable due to the company's buying power. The downside is that it also squeezes out smaller organic farms who can't compete, and the demand has forced the company to source organic products from overseas, where organic standards are not monitored or regulated. There's also the concern that they could try to water down the organic standards in order to cut costs.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

Actually, you aren't providing facts. You're bringing up unoriginal unsubstantiated hearsay that you admit is of questionable veracity. Some might describe it as "just a bunch of crap".

Mirror that back to you.

Oh and please don't make me explain what that means...I'm tired of having to give you definitions in my posts or correct your use of words....yawn again.

Edited July 4, 2010 by CleaningLadyinCleveland

[TheNiche]

Unfortunately Walmat does not share your "live and let live" philosophy. They have a history of extreme business models that encourage human rights abuses, unequal pay for men and women for the same job, locking employees in stores overnight, retaliating and firing employees when they call in sick even with a doctor's note, censoring and banning for sale from their stores any CDs, books, or movies which might cause one of their shoppers to have an independent thought, and leaving employees without health insurance so they are forced to rely on society for government healthcare programs or emergency visits.

I think you should be able to pick a side based on moral issues and societal issues without being labeled derogatory terms. That doesn't really add value to the conversation. I'm not going to personally attack someone for dismissing legitimate and well-known concerns about the company; I understand that we all have different moral boundaries and values and some may assume that capitalist system should just take care of itself, despite repeated evidence that capitalist firms will instead abuse their people and the environment without proper monitoring and safeguarding from external forces.

I have no ethical qualms about any of that, in particular as it might pertain to a new Yale Street location. People with a thin skin shouldn't work for Wal-Mart. People that have ethical objections to it or whose preferred products aren't carried shouldn't shop there.

And frankly, if you want to get into the ethics of globalist capitalism (and Wal-Mart is only its poster child)...I would make a case based upon a humanistic perspective that international trade and finance advances human rights and dignity and is a dis-incentive for engaging in open aggression between industrialized nations. I wouldn't go so far as to say that opponents to globalist capitalism are evil (or describe them subjectively as protagonists/antagonists, CleaningLady), but I would describe them as misinformed or possibly misled by special interests.

[TheNiche]

Mirror that back to you.

Oh and please don't make me explain what that means...I'm tired of having to give you definitions in my posts or correct your use of words....yawn again.

Most of my discourse on HAIF entails pointing out the inadequacies or inconsistencies in other people's arguments. I don't present propaganda as evidence.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

I have no ethical qualms about any of that, in particular as it might pertain to a new Yale Street location. People with a thin skin shouldn't work for Wal-Mart. People that have ethical objections to it or whose preferred products aren't carried shouldn't shop there.

And frankly, if you want to get into the ethics of globalist capitalism (and Wal-Mart is only its poster child)...I would make a case based upon a humanistic perspective that international trade and finance advances human rights and dignity and is a dis-incentive for engaging in open aggression between industrialized nations. I wouldn't go so far as to say that opponents to globalist capitalism are evil (or describe them subjectively as protagonists/antagonists, CleaningLady), but I would describe them as misinformed or possibly misled by special interests.

Here we go again...I have to give you a reading comprehension lesson once again...Title of the thread "Wal-Mart to invade the Heights". It's about a proposed store to be built in a neighborhood (which you do not even live in). I wrote that YOU are not the protagonist, which by definition means that YOU are NOT ANY of the following:

1 a : the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story) b : a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event

2 : a leader, proponent, or supporter of a cause : champion

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

Most of my discourse on HAIF entails pointing out the inadequacies or inconsistencies in other people's arguments. I don't present propaganda as evidence.

LMAO! That has got to be the funniest thing you've ever posted - maybe you are not a bore after all

[TheNiche]

The yield per unit of land has gone up due to modern agriculture, but the nutritional value of the food itself has gone down due to use of monocultures.

I would dispute that monocultures cause the nutritional value of food to go down. It just depends on the characteristics of a given strain of a crop. There are legitimate long-term problems with monocultures, admittedly, and the biggest is that new diseases could wipe out large swaths of crop land and threaten the global food supply. That's something that can be addressed through a regulatory process, however.

Hormones and antibiotics are part of an industrial farming process that is undoubtedly cruel to the animals subject to it, and their extensive use poses a serious concern human health, as the slow dose of antibiotics in the human diet renders those medicines useless as harmful bacteria evolve and become immune.

I'm thinking that this debate will be moot in a matter of years as processed meats grown in a laboratory setting become more financially feasible. In the mean time, exaclty how many milligrams of hormones or antibiotics are contained in a half-pound hamburger patty? Or in a half-dozen Chicken McNuggets? Quantify the problem.

As for GMOs specifically, I'm not against them, although there are unforeseen consequences, much of it unintentional but nonetheless concerning. Pollen spreading in the air from B.t. corn has shown to cause high mortality rates among monarch butterflies, an important species for the pollination in the plant world. I also have a hard time supporting the patenting of genetic material and then suing nearby farmers who just happened to have GM seeds blow into their farm.

These are regulatory problems, not technological ones.

But back to Walmart and the quality if their food....it should be noted that they did make a commitment to sell more organic products a few years ago. This has the positive impact of increases the amount of land being used for organic farming and making those products more affordable due to the company's buying power. The downside is that it also squeezes out smaller organic farms who can't compete, and the demand has forced the company to source organic products from overseas, where organic standards are not monitored or regulated. There's also the concern that they could try to water down the organic standards in order to cut costs.

As I implied earlier, buying 'premium' products from Wal-Mart is a questionable practice. I wouldn't buy high-end electronics or power tools from Wal-Mart, either. People who care about these kinds of products should exercise common sense. For all its feel-good branding, Whole Foods should also not be considered above reproach.

[TheNiche]

Here we go again...I have to give you a reading comprehension lesson once again...Title of the thread "Wal-Mart to invade the Heights". It's about a proposed store to be built in a neighborhood (which you do not even live in).

The title of the thread (and much of its content) is absurd. Wal-Mart is not considering a new store in the Heights.

Wal-Mart is a community retailer and this store would serve my community. Therefore I claim standing.

I wrote that YOU are not the protagonist, which by definition means that YOU are NOT ANY of the following:

1 a : the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story) b : a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event

2 : a leader, proponent, or supporter of a cause : champion

Allow me to respond properly to your earlier comment, as that might better inform you of my motivation for all this:

Oh and you haven't been effective or affective in "advancing your position". I don't think you've changed my mind or enlightened me in any way, shape or form (and perhaps others). You are not the protagonist in this thread....(yawn)

My position is that many of the positions being taken up on this thread are inadequate or inconsistent. It is not my intent to enlighten you; my intent is to intellectually obstruct you. I do so because I can. It delights me.

Various other people have taken on various other positions, for or against. They're welcome to do so, just as you and I are. It is an open message board. There are no protagonists because nobody can claim a thread as their sole dominion.

[Porchman]

I have not weighed in on this yet, because I really don’t care. My apathy, I think, is driven by a dual sense. I don’t like Walmart. I don’t hate Walmart.

However, I have been bothered by rampant supposition throughout this thread. My summary of the opposition to this development:

(1) Big box stores inside the Loop are bad…except for Target on Sawyer, HEB wherever, Costco on Wesleyan, and Whole Foods on Waugh. I, too, hate Big Box for its sprawl characteristics. Yet, I have not seen a single person who has posted say anything about footprint of the above developments or say anything about the egregious concrete around the new Kroger Signature on Shepherd, for that matter. All I see posted is what great assets these other boxes are.

(2) People being underpaid and mistreated…just like dishwashers in the locally owned restaurants, the workers who mill clothes at Target, and those who harvest our food available at the local grocery stores. May we strive to cure all such things.

(3) The proposed Walmart is in the Heights. It’s not. It’s on an odd, ugly undeveloped brownfield, south of the Katy Freeway. I have spoken out against the redevelopment of 945 Heights, (sometimes in most distasteful ways). I have expressed concerns and even argued with Redscare about 2125 Heights. I just don’t view the proposed Walmart as the uber-threat with which it is being treated. The issues for which I have stood before were totally in the middle of our neighborhood. This is not.

(4) Walmart ruins property values. The Dunvale example is convenient. Apparently, the Dunvale Walmart (which had been at the location for several years prior to 2001) suddenly created a huge drop in property values all the way out to Highway 6 in the past decade. However, it helped property values in 77024 a half-mile away? Certainly, 77007 may see some property value drop in the next few years. It has the advantage of being very convenient to major hubs of the City. Its disadvantage is that it is immersed by aging, stucco-box townhouses and apartment buildings, lining narrow streets, and adjacent to a bunch of flavor-of-the-month bars. If this development happens, Walmart might be the only sign of stability in the neighborhood.

(5) Walmart sells cheap crap. Yep! For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, affordable is better. The economy has no effect on this. Many people live this way, and will continue to do so.

(6) Walmart on Yale will create a traffic mess. Probably. Popular places do. Welcome to Houston!

Let’s not be stupid here. Walmart does not exist in a vacuum of injustice. We, in the Heights, are not appointed as stewards of justice. Living in a World 1 Country, in a unique neighborhood, in an economically stable City can make such things difficult to realize and digest. I don’t deny a certain knee-jerk instinct that this development would be bad (mostly over the big box issue). However, looking at the proposed development – locally and globally – I cannot object to this.

I don’t care if this Walmart flies or not. In light of the disaster in the Gulf, the two wars in which our Nation is engaged, and our struggling economy, the furor over this seems absurd. I ask that the discourse over this find a more balanced plateau in all manners.

[AtticaFlinch]

Unfortunately Walmat does not share your "live and let live" philosophy. They have a history of extreme business models that encourage human rights abuses, unequal pay for men and women for the same job, locking employees in stores overnight, retaliating and firing employees when they call in sick even with a doctor's note, censoring and banning for sale from their stores any CDs, books, or movies which might cause one of their shoppers to have an independent thought, and leaving employees without health insurance so they are forced to rely on society for government healthcare programs or emergency visits.

I think you should be able to pick a side based on moral issues and societal issues without being labeled derogatory terms. That doesn't really add value to the conversation. I'm not going to personally attack someone for dismissing legitimate and well-known concerns about the company; I understand that we all have different moral boundaries and values and some may assume that capitalist system should just take care of itself, despite repeated evidence that capitalist firms will instead abuse their people and the environment without proper monitoring and safeguarding from external forces.

There's something Google pulls up called BP Research Center on 6700 Portwest Drive. Granted, it's in the 024 zip code, so it's not technically in the Heights, but it's north of 10 and inside the Loop. Close enough for Heights residents to be sufficiently outraged by the presence of a despicable corporation with unethical business practices to be too close for comfort. I imagine there's already a Facebook page protesting this exact location and Heights residents are probably lining up outside the company gates with pitchforks and picket signs. I mean, if corporate malfeasance were the real issue here and not some sense of faux classist superiority, then surely no one would want to be labeled a hypocrite. Protest one evil empire, you've gotta protest all of 'em. And what's worse, bringing low prices to the masses or dumping millions of barrels of sludge into the Gulf?

People have some (self redacted) priorities.

Edited July 4, 2010 by AtticaFlinch

[Angostura]

But I am curious if the Walmart supporters think that Walmart is the only option? Are you just being so adamant because you don't like it when people have contrary opinions? For example, if this thread wasn't about Walmart, but rather was titled "What would you like to see if you could choose anything for development on this parcel?" What if Walmart were never mentioned and you were starting with a clean slate? Would Walmart be the 1st thing that would come to mind for you? Or would you have had a different vision? Maybe mixed income housing like they have on the east side of Austin? Maybe a small hotel that would employ 300 ppl, plus a restaurant employing 100 more and a few shops, employing 100+ more, all totaling more jobs and generally higher income, even in the lowest positions (hosuekeepers, busboys) for low earners, than Walmart would thus affording these people a better standard of living. If they already live in the area and shop at Walmart, they can continue to go to the (assuming 290) location and still have more pocket money at the end of the day. You might not find it more convenient, but it's about jobs, right? So, rather than 600 parking spaces for one big box, they have a garage with 600+ spaces and multiple businesses, creating more jobs than a Walmart would. Would you want that? Because that is what most of the anti-Walmart people want. We think there are better options out there.

We actually have a pretty good mechanism to ensure that land is put to its highest and best use. It's called the price signal.

In this case, it's apparent that Walmart is willing to pay more for this site than HEB is. Which is to say that Walmart apparently believes it can realize more economic value from this acreage than HEB thinks it (HEB) can. I'm not necessarily thrilled by that fact, and I'd rather an HEB on that site than Walmart, but it doesn't look like HEB is willing to put its money where my mouth is.

[heights_yankee]

(2) People being underpaid and mistreated…just like dishwashers in the locally owned restaurants, the workers who mill clothes at Target, and those who harvest our food available at the local grocery stores. May we strive to cure all such things.

(3) The proposed Walmart is in the Heights. It’s not. It’s on an odd, ugly undeveloped brownfield, south of the Katy Freeway. I have spoken out against the redevelopment of 945 Heights, (sometimes in most distasteful ways). I have expressed concerns and even argued with Redscare about 2125 Heights. I just don’t view the proposed Walmart as the uber-threat with which it is being treated. The issues for which I have stood before were totally in the middle of our neighborhood. This is not.

I don’t care if this Walmart flies or not. In light of the disaster in the Gulf, the two wars in which our Nation is engaged, and our struggling economy, the furor over this seems absurd. I ask that the discourse over this find a more balanced plateau in all manners.

I do strive to cure all those things. I do it with my pocket book and with my vote in the elections. I work on social injustices on many levels, wherever I feel I have a voice. I'm a whacked out crazy Liberal like that. But politics is another forum. Much like the other stereotypes and generalizations about individuals in this thread, I just don't think it's a fair assumption to say that people who don't want Walmart are dedicating all their time to this issue and nothing else, or that they are coming out of nowhere on the issue when many people have boycotted and fought WM's development for years. It's not a novel thing and it's not just this small number of people on HAIF talking about it.

I wish this was a more balanced discussion as well.

[AtticaFlinch]

...and it's not just this small number of people on HAIF talking about it.

Might does not make right, no matter if the intentions are good or not. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. For every ill-conceived battle you fight in order to create your urban oasis, you create 1000 more problems. Fight away, self-described liberal, but your liberalism looks more like Che Guevara than Martin Luther King. They both had successes, but one is a revered leader who's memorialized in some way in virtually every city in this country while the other is now little more than a T-shirt design. Even if you manage to keep Walmart out of the inner-loop (which you won't be - there is no ecological nor cultural value to that land), it won't fix a damned thing. Walmart will still be evil, the poor Taiwanese will still be working for ten dollars per year, the million plus employees of the company still won't qualify for medical insurance, the women still won't be promoted fairly, they'll still sell genetically-modified agriculture... all this and the less than wealthy residents of the Heights and surrounding communities won't he able to take advantage of low prices. To use another trite axiom, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And you fall right into their trap. By wasting time focusing on individual stores, you've allowed them to sneak the big picture cultural, political and economic shift right by you. They've changed the world for the worse, and you somehow feel that defeating one tiny store will correct everything. It fixes nothing, but it creates another 1000 problems.

[Porchman]

I do strive to cure all those things. I do it with my pocket book and with my vote in the elections. I work on social injustices on many levels, wherever I feel I have a voice. I'm a whacked out crazy Liberal like that. But politics is another forum. Much like the other stereotypes and generalizations about individuals in this thread, I just don't think it's a fair assumption to say that people who don't want Walmart are dedicating all their time to this issue and nothing else, or that they are coming out of nowhere on the issue when many people have boycotted and fought WM's development for years. It's not a novel thing and it's not just this small number of people on HAIF talking about it.

I wish this was a more balanced discussion as well.

No doubt, this fight is not novel. However the arguments seem to isolate Walmart for ills for which others are gulity...and ignored while those others are celebrated. Particularly in the context of what has been posted on many threads herein, that's hypocrisy. That's what's disappointing for me. I think that disappointment is the root of derision which others are projecting.

[barracuda]

There's something Google pulls up called BP Research Center on 6700 Portwest Drive. Granted, it's in the 024 zip code, so it's not technically in the Heights, but it's north of 10 and inside the Loop. Close enough for Heights residents to be sufficiently outraged by the presence of a despicable corporation with unethical business practices to be too close for comfort. I imagine there's already a Facebook page protesting this exact location and Heights residents are probably lining up outside the company gates with pitchforks and picket signs. I mean, if corporate malfeasance were the real issue here and not some sense of faux classist superiority, then surely no one would want to be labeled a hypocrite. Protest one evil empire, you've gotta protest all of 'em. And what's worse, bringing low prices to the masses or dumping millions of barrels of sludge into the Gulf?

People have some (self redacted) priorities.

That's an inadequate comparison for several reasons. The research center is pre-existing, and it likely has nothing to do with the operational aspect of BP which resulted in the Gulf oil spill. The Walmart store has not been built, so it is a perfectly appropriate time to discuss the pros and cons of the project -- before it gets built. Additionally, many of the problems discussed previously occur at the retail store level, so there's no reason to believe this location will resolve any of the issues that affect other Walmart locations, such as a poor shopping experience an shoddy merchandise, not to mention the unethical business practices like wage discrimination, lack of health-insurance, firing employees for sick time, etc.

It's also ridiculous to assert that having a moral objection to the irresponsible business practices of one corporation mean you must simultaneously fight every battle with every other corporation with poor business practices. That's like suggesting that America should fight a war with every enemy simultaneously. There are varying levels of evil, and Walmart is the topic at hand. I've raised some perfectly logical objections against the project -- namely, the fact that it's not going to help the local job market long-term, and that it's not really going to help low-inome residents, as studies show their prices are only average, while service and merchandise quality is one of the worst in the industry. The moral and ethical conundrum is an extension of the argument against Walmart, because the company has a reported history of abuses that goes far beyond that of any other other big-box retailer.

This discussion also tells me is that many folks here are truly excited to have a Walmart nearby, so apparently the company's advertising and shameless self-promotion has really paid off.

[Marksmu]

...and if anyone has any interest in reading and/or participating - here is a link to a FB page - Stop Heights Wal-Mart: http://www.facebook....sWalMart?v=wall

After reading this entire thread, and then looking at that awful excuse for a facebook page - I can summarize this whole thread.

1. The people who want to control everyone else's lives and tell everyone else how to live - dont want Wal Mart. They also dont want new homes, or any increase in property value. They love whole foods, and overpriced gimmick crap They want to save the earth, and bad mouth anybody who makes any money at all. Oil is evil, Wal Mart is worse, and they are here to save the world. These people are almost undoubtedly Obama supporters who are too blind to see that the media has whitewashed all his failures, and who also blame everything wrong in the world today on Bush.

2. In the other camp, are the people who are sick of the stereotyped people above. They are from varied political ideologies (get that from the politics section here) They are protective of private property rights, and generally think that the free market will work things out..They believe that Capitalism and the free market built this country, and that the unions, and people who try to control every aspect of everyone elses lives are at fault for the continual decline.

Personally I find the majority of the people in the stop the walmart/ Houston Heights Association people to be offensive. It makes me sick to see people think they have the right to tell someone else what they can or cant do with their own property.

I hope WalMart reads this thread and that joke for a facebook page, and instead of building a Wal Mart, builds a gun store, with a gun range, a military recruitment center, a RNC headquarters, and an architectural company who specializes in demolishing small bunaglows that have "Save Our Historic Neighbohood" signs in their front yards, and replacing them with HUGE modern monstrosities.

The gall that you people YES, "You People" think you have the right to tell others how to live is sickening.

"

If you dont want the walmart, get your hippy do gooder friends to all chip in and you can buy the lot and build another farmers market where everyone can buy "local" "organic" food straight from Mexico. Until you can afford it, you have no right to tell others who can what they can or cant do with it. Its not yours, its not your business, I dont care where it is.

[barracuda]

And you fall right into their trap. By wasting time focusing on individual stores, you've allowed them to sneak the big picture cultural, political and economic shift right by you. They've changed the world for the worse, and you somehow feel that defeating one tiny store will correct everything. It fixes nothing, but it creates another 1000 problems.

Another illogical argument. Battles fought at the grass-roots level are often what win wars. Communities across the country have fought Walmart, some successfully and some not, but the tide definitely turned against Walmart some time ago. Efforts against stores like this are in fact forcing Walmart to incorporate better business practices, and the image makeover has become more urgent for the company as they try to invade urban areas, where the company is not viewed as favorably.

[barracuda]

After reading this entire thread, and then looking at that awful excuse for a facebook page - I can summarize this whole thread.

1. The people who want to control everyone else's lives and tell everyone else how to live - dont want Wal Mart. They also dont want new homes, or any increase in property value. They love whole foods, and overpriced gimmick crap They want to save the earth, and bad mouth anybody who makes any money at all. Oil is evil, Wal Mart is worse, and they are here to save the world. These people are almost undoubtedly Obama supporters who are too blind to see that the media has whitewashed all his failures, and who also blame everything wrong in the world today on Bush.

You're trying to control other people's lives by telling them they shouldn't care about anything and by fighting against folks who don't want the store.

2. In the other camp, are the people who are sick of the stereotyped people above. They are from varied political ideologies (get that from the politics section here) They are protective of private property rights, and generally think that the free market will work things out..They believe that Capitalism and the free market built this country, and that the unions, and people who try to control every aspect of everyone elses lives are at fault for the continual decline.

There's a difference between being protective of property rights and being against a company with a bad history. Capitalism helped to build this country...but so did little things like the New Deal and the Eisenhower's interstate system.

Personally I find the majority of the people in the stop the walmart/ Houston Heights Association people to be offensive. It makes me sick to see people think they have the right to tell someone else what they can or cant do with their own property.

You would oppose a coal power plant if it were proposed for that site. The Walmart store isn't that extreme, but there's nothing wrong with taxpayers voicing their opinions on matters that will affect their infrastructure and a retail space, which is a public space to a certain degree.

I hope WalMart reads this thread and that joke for a facebook page, and instead of building a Wal Mart, builds a gun store, with a gun range, a military recruitment center, a RNC headquarters, and an architectural company who specializes in demolishing small bunaglows that have "Save Our Historic Neighbohood" signs in their front yards, and replacing them with HUGE modern monstrosities.

The gall that you people YES, "You People" think you have the right to tell others how to live is sickening.

"

If you dont want the walmart, get your hippy do gooder friends to all chip in and you can buy the lot and build another farmers market where everyone can buy "local" "organic" food straight from Mexico. Until you can afford it, you have no right to tell others who can what they can or cant do with it. Its not yours, its not your business, I dont care where it is.

I sense a lot of hatred and stereotyping that goes beyond some folks opposing a store. Unless you have a position in the land in question, it's strange that you'd get that upset about people voicing an opinion. Or you're just been desperately longing for the Walmart that we've all only recently known about.

[Porchman]

After reading this entire thread, and then looking at that awful excuse for a facebook page - I can summarize this whole thread.

1. The people who want to control everyone else's lives and tell everyone else how to live - dont want Wal Mart. They also dont want new homes, or any increase in property value. They love whole foods, and overpriced gimmick crap They want to save the earth, and bad mouth anybody who makes any money at all. Oil is evil, Wal Mart is worse, and they are here to save the world. These people are almost undoubtedly Obama supporters who are too blind to see that the media has whitewashed all his failures, and who also blame everything wrong in the world today on Bush.

2. In the other camp, are the people who are sick of the stereotyped people above. They are from varied political ideologies (get that from the politics section here) They are protective of private property rights, and generally think that the free market will work things out..They believe that Capitalism and the free market built this country, and that the unions, and people who try to control every aspect of everyone elses lives are at fault for the continual decline.

The point many of us are making is that this is not a black-white issue where Walmart is all-evil, and all other commercial entities have no baggage. There is also an emotional tug on this thread in that some are dismayed that the non-reactionary, middle ground is not being found among many posting here. As a whole, there is a disappointment in that. Also, I think some members are expecting more of other, specific members.while garbage is expected to flow from other posters. Thank you for weighing in. You helped frame the argument, and you did not disappoint anybody. A few hours ago, I was looking for elevation of the discussion. We received levity instead. I'll take that..

[TheNiche]

There are varying levels of evil, and Walmart is the topic at hand. I've raised some perfectly logical objections against the project...

Ethics are illogical.

...studies show their prices are only average...

Cite sources.

...the company has a reported history of abuses that goes far beyond that of any other other big-box retailer.

Cite sources.

This discussion also tells me is that many folks here are truly excited to have a Walmart nearby, so apparently the company's advertising and shameless self-promotion has really paid off.

Speaking from personal experience, Wal-Mart and Target are at very different price points. These differences are particularly acute where food items are concerned. Archer Farms has got to be about the most expensive store brand ever.

[heights_yankee]

No doubt, this fight is not novel. However the arguments seem to isolate Walmart for ills for which others are gulity...and ignored while those others are celebrated. Particularly in the context of what has been posted on many threads herein, that's hypocrisy. That's what's disappointing for me. I think that disappointment is the root of derision which others are projecting.

Actually, there was a lot of discussion on here and on other forums about the Target center when it was proposed. There was not a lot of opposition, as I remember anyway, and I think a lot of that was the location. I think what a lot of people have is an optimism and a hope for something better in the proposed Walmart location. Anyway, the Target drew a lot of criticism, especially as the smaller store names came in and people realized it was a mattress store and a Chili's. There were a lot of pictures of "urban" Target marketplaces that people hoped for and lots of grumbling about the parking lot we ended up with instead.

No, it was not to such a degree as the Walmart issue but again many people have issues with Walmart that go beyond just this development. On the "sorry excuse for a FB page" a lot of people mention having not set foot in a Walmart in years and that their boycott started long before this thread started on the HAIF.

I love how in this thread the same people who are just rich folks who don't care about the poor people who need Walmart are also the same people who resent anyone who makes any money. The people who are accused of being shallow and having no principles are also derided for trying to save the world. This is why this whole conversation makes no sense anymore. People aren't allowed to have varying view points with out being personally maligned for being on the other side of the issue. It's sad, honestly, the path this has taken. I was trying to take part in a conversation which has now gotten so mean spirited that I'm out.

[AtticaFlinch]

Speaking from personal experience, Wal-Mart and Target are at very different price points. These differences are particularly acute where food items are concerned. Archer Farms has got to be about the most expensive store brand ever.

Also speaking from experience, at least as of a year ago, the $120 baby crib at Target is available in the exact same model from the exact same manufacturer for $99. This means two things. One, big boxes have the same damned suppliers for at least one of their items. I'm willing to bet you can extrapolate that to most of their inventory also. This is to say Target is ripping off the same set of Chinese workers as Walmart. Two, the person who paid $20 more for the exact same baby crib as the one I bought got raped. I'd rather have a neighbor who took advantage of cheap Chinese labor than a neighbor who went around raping. Also, how stupid would it he to waste $20, just under 20% more, for the exact same thing just because one shop is cooler than the other. That sort of decision making skills is what caused our economic meltdown in the first place. That's just a bad use of money, and anyone who would choose the Target product over the identical Walmart product shouldn't be allowed anywhere near money.

Had I really been concerned about Walmart's politics, I still would have bought the crib at Walmart and used the savings difference to donate to an anti-corporate PAC. That would be a much smarter use of the cash. I guess some people would rather just waste their cash.

[TheNiche]

I love how in this thread the same people who are just rich folks who don't care about the poor people who need Walmart are also the same people who resent anyone who makes any money. The people who are accused of being shallow and having no principles are also derided for trying to save the world. This is why this whole conversation makes no sense anymore.

Hypocrisy -- a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[heights]

Because the other Walmart thread has become a debate between a handful of bloggers calling one another's comments "crap", I've decided to start a new thread that will focus on information regarding the proposed Walmart shopping center on Yale. The posts in this thread should deal with information about the plans for the center, such as timing, what stores will be there, property layouts, etc.

If you want to debate whether or not there should be a Walmart on Yale, please post those comments in a different thread. Whether or not you want the Walmart, or if you don't care one way or another, you can post any information you have about said Walmart shopping center here. Please do not add editorial comments about how you think Walmart treats its workers, or about what Walmart may or may not do for property values in the area, etc. -- let's try to keep this thread

I'll start by re-posting the plan and a link to the Chron article about the Walmart.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7090711.html

Thanks in advance for keeping this post a non-confrontational, non-editorial, non-opinionated news source for the plans for that development.

walmart.pdf