Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[heights]

Looks like the attachment didn't work in my first post, so here it is the currently proposed Walmart center layout again in jpg format.

[Marksmu]

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.

No, just the opposite. I am simply stating that if you dont own it, you dont get to say what is done with it. I will still support your right to disagree with me. Complain all you want, it is your right to do so. It is NOT your right to get to CONTROL what people do with their property. Your welcome to hate it, talk about it, protest it, complain about it...your not welcome to control it....thats is the right of the owner. (within reason of course)

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.

Capitalism built the country period, we would not be in the same place we are now if we were a more socialist country.

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.

There are big differences between a retail store and a dangerous power plant. I am not against new power plants, coal or otherwise...we need more but the democrats and the same NIMBYS have made it almost impossible to build any new power plants. We have an abundance of natural gas in this country that we are not using because they cant get permits to build a power plant, b/c people like you who think they can control everything, dont want it within X miles of their home.

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.

I have absolutely no connection to WalMart. I hate the store. I never go there. Its been a very long time since I had to stop in at a WalMart. The store will not make me happy, I actually do not want it there....but I'm not so selfish as to think that just because I dont want something and have no use for it, that others dont. My preferences are certainly not so important as to get to control everyone elses private property rights..

The same people who oppose any new construction in the heights are the same people who oppose the Walmart. They think they can control what others can do because it is what they want. News Flash - that is not how it works.

I own rental property in the historic district, and when the time comes, I will bulldoze the house regardless of what some ordinance says b/c you dont get to control me.

[ricco67]

Well, people shouldn't be surprised by my position about walmart, but I was hoping some apartments would be built there with a couple of small stores (convenience and dry cleaning). Having a development like "City Centre" or even the Post on Midtown won't happen there, it's too relatively "isolated" to work.

some of you guys need to chill out and agree to disagree.

[barracuda]

Ethics are illogical.

They're not necessarily illogical if they are the basis of rights and laws. You could in effect say that a company that breaks a law affecting workers rights for 10% of its employees has worse corporate ethics than a similar company that breaks the same laws for 1% of it's employees.

barracuda, on Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 7:58 PM, said:

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

Cite sources.

Already did earlier in the thread, but here it is again. From CR July 2010 page 16, "For all the talk about Walmart's low prices, 30,666 subscribers we surveyed said the prices at 10 other retailers, including JCPenney, Sears, Dillard's, and Meijer, were at least as good."

barracuda, on Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 7:58 PM, said:

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

Cite sources.

Okay, so some assumptions were made on the basis of multiple documentaries and extensive media coverage of the company's negative business practices and their harmful effect on communities in which they build and operate. I have not been able to find a history of such coverage for other retailers, which may not hold up in court but is interesting nonetheless. And Walmart did pioneer many of the business practices that made them the scape goat they are today. Regardless, I recognize that there's a race to the bottom amongst most if not all big-box retailers at least in part due to Walmart's success at finding ways to bend the rules in their favor.

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.

Personal experience may vary, but the survey was based on feedback from 30,666 shoppers. Note that Target was not mentioned in the list of retailers with comparable prices.

[barracuda]

No, just the opposite. I am simply stating that if you dont own it, you dont get to say what is done with it. I will still support your right to disagree with me. Complain all you want, it is your right to do so. It is NOT your right to get to CONTROL what people do with their property. Your welcome to hate it, talk about it, protest it, complain about it...your not welcome to control it....thats is the right of the owner. (within reason of course)

I'm merely expressing some opinions on a discussion board. I haven't spoken with the land owners or any local officials to protest the deal. So there's no attempt on my part to control their property.

That said, there already are measures to control what is done with the property. There are environmental and infrastructure impacts that could affect nearby residents. Walmart may also seek property tax abatement, which shifts tax burdens onto local taxpayers. Thus, residents should have a say in such matters that will directly affect them.

Capitalism built the country period, we would not be in the same place we are now if we were a more socialist country.

Like I said, capitalism is part of what built the country, but it can't exist in a vacuum. Without our history of government investment in infrastructure, schools and education, military and defense, etc., capitalism wouldn't thrive in this country as it has.

There are big differences between a retail store and a dangerous power plant. I am not against new power plants, coal or otherwise...we need more but the democrats and the same NIMBYS have made it almost impossible to build any new power plants. We have an abundance of natural gas in this country that we are not using because they cant get permits to build a power plant, b/c people like you who think they can control everything, dont want it within X miles of their home.

The question is, would you want a coal power plant, or say, an industrial lead smelter, built a few miles from your house? If you oppose it, then you are trying to control property rights. Same thing, different reasons.

I have absolutely no connection to WalMart. I hate the store. I never go there. Its been a very long time since I had to stop in at a WalMart. The store will not make me happy, I actually do not want it there....but I'm not so selfish as to think that just because I dont want something and have no use for it, that others dont. My preferences are certainly not so important as to get to control everyone elses private property rights..

The same people who oppose any new construction in the heights are the same people who oppose the Walmart. They think they can control what others can do because it is what they want. News Flash - that is not how it works.

I own rental property in the historic district, and when the time comes, I will bulldoze the house regardless of what some ordinance says b/c you dont get to control me.

Hmm...well I don't oppose new Heights construction. And in fact, I'm okay with bulldozing houses that are in disrepair and have no real architectural or historical value. But I also live in a neighborhood where the replacement must follow certain historical guidelines, and I'm okay with these rules since I was aware of them when I moved here.

[TheNiche]

They're not necessarily illogical if they are the basis of rights and laws. You could in effect say that a company that breaks a law affecting workers rights for 10% of its employees has worse corporate ethics than a similar company that breaks the same laws for 1% of it's employees.

To say that Wal-Mart is unethical because it breaks the law is no stronger or more valid a statement than if I were to respond that the law is unethical because it interferes with Wal-Mart's exercise of fair business practices. And I don't believe in the unalienable human right to 40-hour weeks or equal opportunity employment, so I can say that with a straight face.

An enforceable code of law is a good thing to have around; even where it doesn't make sense--and I think we can all agree that the law is not a system for maintaining social order rather than for defining good and evil--it should be upheld consistently. The stability that it provides is convenient. If Wal-Mart is breaking the law, then Wal-Mart should be prosecuted. If Wal-Mart (and other firms like it) are skirting the law, then the law itself is probably poorly written and needs revision according to the system that governs it. But the political system that gives rise to the law is not decreed by some omnipotent deity as factual Truth, it cannot possibly be perfect, (only situationally convenient), and the law derived from it cannot not define good and evil.

Already did earlier in the thread, but here it is again. From CR July 2010 page 16, "For all the talk about Walmart's low prices, 30,666 subscribers we surveyed said the prices at 10 other retailers, including JCPenney, Sears, Dillard's, and Meijer, were at least as good."

Consumer Reports surveyed its subscribers. Sample bias is going to be a problem for several reasons, not the least of which is that CR subscribers tend to have discretionary income; such people have the luxury of being able to afford nice things; nice things aren't Wal-Mart's strong suit.

Another big problem is EDLP; Wal-Mart does not put on dramatic sales the way that many apparel retailers do, meaning that their average price is consistently low, but may not compete with highly-visible sales put on from time to time by competitors. The business model is different, and that isn't likely to be taken into account in a simple questionnaire.

Okay, so some assumptions were made on the basis of multiple documentaries and extensive media coverage of the company's negative business practices and their harmful effect on communities in which they build and operate. I have not been able to find a history of such coverage for other retailers, which may not hold up in court but is interesting nonetheless. And Walmart did pioneer many of the business practices that made them the scape goat they are today. Regardless, I recognize that there's a race to the bottom amongst most if not all big-box retailers at least in part due to Walmart's success at finding ways to bend the rules in their favor.

Earlier in the thread, I compared a meal at McDonald's to a meal at Boston Market. Many entrees at Boston Market are considerably less healthy than McDonald's, even when smaller portions are consumed (at a higher price in a nicer-looking restaurant). So why didn't the guy from Supersize Me! go around the country eating at Boston Markets?

Like Wal-Mart, McDonald's is the poster child for societal ills because nearly every voting adult in every part of every industrialized nation has had some exposure to at some point in their life. It's a big target.

But I think that you and I can probably agree that whatever "evil" looks like, it's a qualitative measure and is irrespective of global market share. And since this thread is about the possibility of one more Wal-Mart versus one more of something else of similar scale, it strikes me that if one more Boston Market is worse than one more maligned McDonald's, then perhaps this might also be a fitting analogy for Wal-Mart and...whatever else. If it's capitalism and market forces that are evil, then it's really not at all about Wal-Mart. It doesn't matter what would get built here; some lesser workforce will be exploited to profitably satisfy a wealthier clientele. There will still be new traffic, there will still be new crime, there will still be a strong potential for ugliness, and so on and so forth. Tit for tat.

[smurf]

As much as I respect private development right , but not at the expense of others property rights. Corporations have rights (according to te Supreme Court), but we the people have rights too and a corporation cannot trimuiph over others rights (according to Supreme Court too). Do we not have the right to protest if their development affects our property rights, property value and quality of life such as traffic, utitlities? If you think outside of your one-track mind of economics and think in terms of the big picture. Life is not all about making money. It's as simple as that.

Any neighborhood (West End and Lower Heights near Yale especially) would be seriously impacted by traffic. Currently Yale is not big enough to accommodate traffic, and it will affect all the surrounding neighborhoods. On top of that, the Walmart entry is on Koehler side because Yale side is below grade in this section to accommodate the rail line underpass.

Does the city not do a (non-rubber stamp) traffic study before issuing permit? It may surprise some of the jaded commenters in this thread, these neighborhoods (townhomes etc), are already a pretty high value residential tax base evolved in this past decade. The city should be enouraging this and not destroying it. This area got the train quiet zone passed. Some of the commentors (who do not live off Washington) complain on clubs and bar, instead of welcoming influx of local money into the area because it is causing many city infrastructural developments to happen in the last few years than have happened in the last 40 years. These townhomes you think are so sub-standard, are built to the same standards as houses in most Houston subdivisions which means they will get re-built on 30-40 years from now and do require regular maintainence as any other house. Nothing in America is built to 100 year standards anymore unless you are willing to 3 or 4 times the price.

FYI - Yale is also the route in Phase 3 of Washnington Ave light rail. I am guessing the city will be giving up on that now. I hope the city takes all these issues into the permit. City fo Houston and surrounding neighborhood had no control over TXDOT's feeder expansion, but we the people have control over our city.

BTW, I am assuming this site will go thru environmental assessment and cleanup, or just be padded over because there was a heavy industry operating there for most of the last century. Most of the time, it was predates environmental regulations.

I have previously stated my specific concerns with Walmart i.e. 30 hour work week, low pay, no health insurance for workers, most workers on mediaid etc programs, ruthless anti- market practices bordering on anti-trust to drive out small businesses, no neighborhood community involvement because it's not in the big picture, quality of products, sourcing of product, enviornmental, sutainability, and community responsibilities that are part of being a public corporation. So I wont dive it them again.

[heights]

To bring a little levity to this thread, here's Shirley Q Liquor telling about problems on her trip to K-mark. She closes by saying next week she's going to Walmark. And before anyone jumps all over me and says this is racist or whatever, it's a well known comedy sketch and it is not racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4eejsXr3b4

Edited July 5, 2010 by heights

[RedScare]

As much as I respect private development right , but not at the expense of others property rights. Corporations have rights (according to te Supreme Court), but we the people have rights too and a corporation cannot trimuiph over others rights (according to Supreme Court too). Do we not have the right to protest if their development affects our property rights, property value and quality of life such as traffic, utitlities? If you think outside of your one-track mind of economics and think in terms of the big picture. Life is not all about making money. It's as simple as that.

Any neighborhood (West End and Lower Heights near Yale especially) would be seriously impacted by traffic. Currently Yale is not big enough to accommodate traffic, and it will affect all the surrounding neighborhoods. On top of that, the Walmart entry is on Koehler side because Yale side is below grade in this section to accommodate the rail line underpass.

Does the city not do a (non-rubber stamp) traffic study before issuing permit? It may surprise some of the jaded commenters in this thread, these neighborhoods (townhomes etc), are already a pretty high value residential tax base evolved in this past decade. The city should be enouraging this and not destroying it. This area got the train quiet zone passed. Some of the commentors (who do not live off Washington) complain on clubs and bar, instead of welcoming influx of local money into the area because it is causing many city infrastructural developments to happen in the last few years than have happened in the last 40 years. These townhomes you think are so sub-standard, are built to the same standards as houses in most Houston subdivisions which means they will get re-built on 30-40 years from now and do require regular maintainence as any other house. Nothing in America is built to 100 year standards anymore unless you are willing to 3 or 4 times the price.

FYI - Yale is also the route in Phase 3 of Washnington Ave light rail. I am guessing the city will be giving up on that now. I hope the city takes all these issues into the permit. City fo Houston and surrounding neighborhood had no control over TXDOT's feeder expansion, but we the people have control over our city.

BTW, I am assuming this site will go thru environmental assessment and cleanup, or just be padded over because there was a heavy industry operating there for most of the last century. Most of the time, it was predates environmental regulations.

I have previously stated my specific concerns with Walmart i.e. 30 hour work week, low pay, no health insurance for workers, most workers on mediaid etc programs, ruthless anti- market practices bordering on anti-trust to drive out small businesses, no neighborhood community involvement because it's not in the big picture, quality of products, sourcing of product, enviornmental, sutainability, and community responsibilities that are part of being a public corporation. So I wont dive it them again.

Reading this post made my eyes bleed. I was going to comment on it until I realized that the poster had begun contradicting his own claims. I'll just let his remarks speak for themselves.

And, no, I will not point out the contradictions. If I had to read it, you have to read it.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

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.

Here's a link to key studies on Wal-Mart and Big Box Retail that says otherwise: http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

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.

How nice of you to decide what people are l....I don't match your description in the least except for I don't want a Wal-Mart store adjacent to the Heights.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

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.

One person cannot take on the whole world, but one person can make a difference in their own world.

[CleaningLadyinCleveland]

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.

I'm right there with you....my energies are being wasted here.

[20thStDad]

If Walmart were smart they would just stick a Starbucks in-store, hire some homeless looking hippie to play guitar and sing every evening, and offer 5 varieties of organic non-offensive soy milk. That'll probably quiet most of the dissenters in the area, at least until they find out the hippie works only for tips and Sam's Choice brand snack foods filled with partially hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial colors and sweeteners.

[barracuda]

If Walmart were smart they would just stick a Starbucks in-store, hire some homeless looking hippie to play guitar and sing every evening, and offer 5 varieties of organic non-offensive soy milk. That'll probably quiet most of the dissenters in the area, at least until they find out the hippie works only for tips and Sam's Choice brand snack foods filled with partially hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial colors and sweeteners.

That would resolve none of the issues posted in this thread, but it's funny nonetheless. And the Walmart may provide plenty of funny/grotesque people watching... http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798

P.S. - you probably won't find many actual hippies hanging out at a Starbucks.

Edited July 6, 2010 by barracuda

[livincinco]

If Walmart were smart they would just stick a Starbucks in-store, hire some homeless looking hippie to play guitar and sing every evening, and offer 5 varieties of organic non-offensive soy milk. That'll probably quiet most of the dissenters in the area, at least until they find out the hippie works only for tips and Sam's Choice brand snack foods filled with partially hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial colors and sweeteners.

Yeah - too bad Walmart isn't smart otherwise they would be much bigger than their current market cap of $178B.

[AtticaFlinch]

One person cannot take on the whole world, but one person can make a difference in their own world.

You are always right in Smugland. You're like Superman, but with a Facebook page instead of superpowers.

Edited July 6, 2010 by AtticaFlinch

[s3mh]

There is a lot of very near-sighted logic about Wal-Mart being a blessing to lower income residents of the inner loop. There has also been very little said about the effect Wal-Mart will have on local and regional inner loop businesses, except for ones that probably will keep their higher income clientele (C & D Hardware, little shops in the Heights).

Wal-Mart will definitely attract business from low-income inner-loop residents. These consumers will not come out of thin air. They will be taken from other businesses. A large number will be taken from the many local and regional Hispanic groceries (La Michoacana, for example) and panaderia, and, most notably, the farmer’s markets on Airline (Canino’s et al). There is no doubt that these local and regional businesses will suffer greatly with Wal-Mart in the loop and may not survive. The result will be that people who could once walk or take a short bus ride to their local market will now have to go all the way down to Wal-Mart. The other result will mean that the scant economic development in the lower income inner-loop neighborhoods will die out. Once the grocery/meat/bakery stores leave, others will struggle with less foot traffic in their strip malls. This effect on small towns has been well documented. The net result is that the money that would normally stay in the community will end up going to Wal-Mart shareholders.

Lower income residents of the inner loop have done just fine without Wal-Mart for decades. Putting Wal-Mart in the middle of quickly gentrifying neighborhoods makes no sense. Wal-Mart will probably end up like Auchan and many other failed mega stores. Wal-Mart’s main profit center is suburban families who are on a budget, not the urban poor. Wal-Mart cannot survive on inner city lower income residents. This city is scarred with too many cheaply built big box developments that have gone bad. Economic development inside the loop will not benefit long term from ill fitting suburban style development. The reason areas like Rice Military, Washington Ave, the Heights and Upper Kirby have thrived is because they are not like Kingwood, Pearland or Spring. These are inner city neighborhoods with a completely different character. Wal-Mart will not only threaten the development of these areas, it will also destroy the struggling businesses in the lower income areas. So, sure. Some people will save money on toilet paper. But the net effect will be very negative for everyone else.

[heights]

Wal-Mart will probably end up like Auchan and many other failed mega stores.

Unfortunately, I'll never be able to say that you've been proven wrong, because Walmart will be a going concern long after both of us have passed on, so the question will not technically be settled.

[AtticaFlinch]

Lower income residents of the inner loop have done just fine without Wal-Mart for decades.

All your postulations and conclusions are entirely based on the assumption that "low-income inner-loop residents" don't ever shop at Walmart - I guess because there isn't one nearby (I don't know, that seems to be about the extent of the logic). I contend "low-income inner-loop residents" DO shop at Walmart already, they just drive farther to do it. As neither of these points can be proven because no evidence has ever been amassed regarding this, except by perhaps Walmart, then perhaps we should trust the anecdotes of people who are "low-income inner-loop residents" or at least who once were. Are you a "low-income inner-loop resident", or are you just another person who knows better than the "low-income inner-loop residents" about what's good for them?

And N Judah, classy move, guy. You can neg rep every post I make (I think you've missed two!), but you won't bait me into doing the same to you or anyone else I disagree with. You and they are entitled to whatever viewpoint they wish, no matter how ill-conceived it is, and if it warrants any negative attention from me, it also warrants a reasoned response. N Judah: always taking the path of most passive-aggressive.

Edited July 6, 2010 by AtticaFlinch

[kylejack]

If Wal-Mart was aiming to serve lower income residents of town they would be going to the SE of downtown where land is cheap, not to the Heights where the houses are largely >$300K.

[AtticaFlinch]

If Wal-Mart was aiming to serve lower income residents of town they would be going to the SE of downtown where land is cheap, not to the Heights where the houses are largely >$300K.

But if Walmart is targeting ALL the residents of the inner-loop, regardless of income or race or whatever else, then they would build right where they're intending to build.

Not every Walmart customer is a peopleofwalmart.com stereotype. Despite what some Heights residents on this thread have said to the contrary, many Heights residents will shop at this new Walmart.

[s3mh]

All your postulations and conclusions are entirely based on the assumption that "low-income inner-loop residents" don't ever shop at Walmart - I guess because there isn't one nearby (I don't know, that seems to be about the extent of the logic). I contend "low-income inner-loop residents" DO shop at Walmart already, they just drive farther to do it. As neither of these points can be proven because no evidence has ever been amassed regarding this, except by perhaps Walmart, then perhaps we should trust the anecdotes of people who are "low-income inner-loop residents" or at least who once were. Are you a "low-income inner-loop resident", or are you just another person who knows better than the "low-income inner-loop residents" about what's good for them?

If the only purpose of an inner-loop Wal-Mart is to cut drive time for existing Wal-Mart customers, then Wal-Mart would have no interest in pursuing the inner-loop location. Wal-Mart could care less about how much time people spend in the car to get to their store. Wal-Mart is looking to get new customers that are not going up to I-45 or 290. That is not an assumption. That is a business reality. The only reason to invest in a new location is to expand marketshare, not to cut in on existing clientele at other locations to altruistically make shopping more convenient for customers.

In reality, I think Wal-Mart is going back to its bad idea of trying to upscale its stores to expand their market share into urban areas. This idea has already flopped. But, I think they believe that Houstonians are much more urban sprawl tolerant than people in other cities.

Finally, personal income level has nothing to do with who knows whether an inner-loop Wal-Mart would be good or bad for anyone inside loop. That is just an ad hominem attack that ignores the merits of the arguments. And don't forget that the developers of the site are probably inner-loopers who make many times what any of us make.

[AtticaFlinch]

If the only purpose of an inner-loop Wal-Mart is to cut drive time for existing Wal-Mart customers, then Wal-Mart would have no interest in pursuing the inner-loop location. Wal-Mart could care less about how much time people spend in the car to get to their store. Wal-Mart is looking to get new customers that are not going up to I-45 or 290. That is not an assumption. That is a business reality. The only reason to invest in a new location is to expand marketshare, not to cut in on existing clientele at other locations to altruistically make shopping more convenient for customers.

In reality, I think Wal-Mart is going back to its bad idea of trying to upscale its stores to expand their market share into urban areas. This idea has already flopped. But, I think they believe that Houstonians are much more urban sprawl tolerant than people in other cities.

I wasn't responding to why Walmart was expanding, as you weren't addressing that either. I responded to your assertion that poor folks inside the loop don't need and don't shop at Walmart.

Finally, personal income level has nothing to do with who knows whether an inner-loop Wal-Mart would be good or bad for anyone inside loop. That is just an ad hominem attack that ignores the merits of the arguments. And don't forget that the developers of the site are probably inner-loopers who make many times what any of us make.

It is not an ad hominem attack, and without proof there are no merits to the argument. That was the point made. Anecdotal evidence is all that's available to address what "lower income residents of the inner loop" want or need.

I've not discussed the individuals who've designed or built or been contracted to do either of those for Walmart (though many would probably be happy for the work right now - I've lately met with several engineering firms and construction companies who've had to lay-off employees and cut back the work weeks of those who remained). Throughout this thread, I've spoken only from two points: 1) the inherent hypocrisy of those who've singled out Walmart for their corporate misconduct while giving a pass to other, equally vile corporations and 2) the inherent hypocrisy of those who don't live paycheck to paycheck speaking for those who do. The other pro-construction perspectives have been taken by several other posters, not me.

[crunchtastic]

Economic development inside the loop will not benefit long term from ill fitting suburban style development.

lol, Ed Wulfe begs to disagree.

Your post is unfortunately filled with wrong statements about businesses you fundamentally don't understand.

By your logic, Canino's should have already been run out of business years ago by the 3 Fiestas in proximity. In fact, they're doing better than ever thanks to gentrification of the Heights and Lindale and the growing latino population generally. Canino's is not just a market stand but a distributor. If WalMart/Sams were going to drive them out of business, it would have already happened at the wholesale, not

retail, level.

I live in a majority-hispanic inner loop neighborhood. The meat markets and panaderias are micro-local places that cater to foot traffic and the newest immigrants still needing a familiar experience. Wal-Mart is destination shopping. They are not natural competitors.

[s3mh]

I wasn't responding to why Walmart was expanding, as you weren't addressing that either. I responded to your assertion that poor folks inside the loop don't need and don't shop at Walmart.

It is not an ad hominem attack, and without proof there are no merits to the argument. That was the point made. Anecdotal evidence is all that's available to address what "lower income residents of the inner loop" want or need.

I've not discussed the individuals who've designed or built or been contracted to do either of those for Walmart (though many would probably be happy for the work right now - I've lately met with several engineering firms and construction companies who've had to lay-off employees and cut back the work weeks of those who remained). Throughout this thread, I've spoken only from two points: 1) the inherent hypocrisy of those who've singled out Walmart for their corporate misconduct while giving a pass to other, equally vile corporations and 2) the inherent hypocrisy of those who don't live paycheck to paycheck speaking for those who do. The other pro-construction perspectives have been taken by several other posters, not me.

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

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

3. There is absolutely no hypocrisy involved when someone makes a valid argument on behalf of those who are in a lower income bracket than they are. You do not have to make minimum wage to validly argue that US agriculture policy makes healthy foods (fruits and vegatables) more expensive than fatty, highly processed foods, which is currently causing an obesity epidemic in lower income communities in this country. The sole purpose of bringing up income is to claim that the people that earn a decent living are incapable of seeing beyond their own self interest. That is a character attack, not a valid argument.

4. Plenty of anti-Wal-Mart perspectives on here as well.

[Jesse]

Before anyone gets all snippy on me about - *gasp* - stating my opinion, let me preface this:

1) I live in the Heights

2) I personally don't want WalMart in the Heights or NEAR the Heights (specifically the Yale St location)

3) I understand some people do want WalMart, or simply don't care. I am not one of them.

4) Yes I understand most documentaries are inherently biased

That being said, here's the very interesting documentary: "WalMart: The High Cost of Low Prices" that I saw a few years ago. I have not shopped in a WalMart since, nor will I ever, regarless of how much I want an item, at any price - except if it comes to the wellbeing and safety of my family (thankfully I cannot forsee how that would occur, but I digress).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925&safe=active#

I encourage you to watch it.

Please, by all means, continue bickering...

[AtticaFlinch]

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

If Walmart was the only one to pony up the highest amount of cash, and it is an acceptable amount for the property owner, then it is Walmart or nothing. If HEB really wanted the land, then they'd have offered to pay more.

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

I never said Walmart is an upstanding corporate citizen with the interests of the community in mind. Never once did I write that. However, I did write that I hate Walmart and its corporate values. I hate the system that allows to to exist but that from time to time, when my personal finances dictate a need, I'm glad it exists. I'd implore you to learn to parse the subtleties of my argument, but I clearly expressed my viewpoint to in the post you've just responded to.

3. There is absolutely no hypocrisy involved when someone makes a valid argument on behalf of those who are in a lower income bracket than they are. You do not have to make minimum wage to validly argue that US agriculture policy makes healthy foods (fruits and vegatables) more expensive than fatty, highly processed foods, which is currently causing an obesity epidemic in lower income communities in this country. The sole purpose of bringing up income is to claim that the people that earn a decent living are incapable of seeing beyond their own self interest. That is a character attack, not a valid argument.

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

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

4. Plenty of anti-Wal-Mart perspectives on here as well.

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

Argument translations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited July 6, 2010 by AtticaFlinch

[sevfiv]

Since pricing is a big Wal-Mart plus (convenience is the other), has anyone done any local comparisons? The couple times I went to Target's food section I didn't find the prices to be terribly different than the nearby HEB (where I go more often).

I found two Wal-Mart v. Target ones and those weren't earth shattering and not sure about temporary sale pricing and so on.

http://honestlycrazy.com/wal-mart-vs-target-a-price-comparison/

http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/target/walmart_versus_target09.html

[AtticaFlinch]

Since pricing is a big Wal-Mart plus (convenience is the other), has anyone done any local comparisons?

I've related an experience where I priced a crib at Target and Walmart, and Walmart came out $20 cheaper for the exact same product. The prices came from the Target on San Felipe and the Walmart on Dunvale. At $99 for the product at Walmart, and $120 at Target, the savings was substantial enough for me to remember it a year after the fact. And, I could be wrong here, but baby cribs aren't products that strike me as being typical "sale" items, nor is it something I would imagine Walmart would use as a "price point" to fool consumers into falsely believing their prices are the lowest.

I imagine there are many items Walmart's price competitiveness fades on, electronics being chief among them, and other areas where product quality can't compare with other retailers, but when price and convenience are the leading motivators for the consumer, Walmart cannot be beat.