barracuda

Chronicle coverage of the meetings here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/heights/news/7090405.html

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. 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. 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you have a point....Walmart may be the only 24-hour retailer that sells car batteries. The other potential emergency items in that list could be bought at an area 24-hour Kroger and even at some service stations. But I get the idea about 24-hour all-in-one convenience. I wouldn't underestimate their impact on the local market...we already saw Kmart and Albertsons exit the local market due to the competitive landscape (in large part because of Walmart and Target). I wouldn't rule out the Randalls or Fiesta on Shepherd determining it's no longer feasible to keep their location open as the competition builds from Walmart and the multiple HEBs being floated around. There may be smaller retailers affected, but it's harder to account for those without knowing their business well. Also, consider that part of the negative reviews written about Walmart are due to their poor service and lack of checkout clerks, which would indicate a smaller ratio of employees per customer at Walmart vs. retailers that scored higher in customer service, further limiting the positive impact on the job market. I do see some factors against a successful Walmart. Many of us are creatures of habit, and the idea of fighting traffic and dealing with a 600+ parking lot will not appeal to a lot of folks so long as there is a Fiesta or other local store much closer to home. Another is the shopping experience itself...as noted by CR, it's just not a pleasant or price-advantageous shopping experience for a lot of folks...unless perhaps it's 3am and you're in urgent need of a new car battery.

There seem to be two common arguments in favor of this Walmart: 1) Low-income residents in the area are just plain desperate for a Walmart because of perceived low prices (likely due to the company's massive ad campaign) 2) A Walmart is better than having a vacant lot...because the economy demands, it and people need low-paying jobs For 1), Consumer Reports has repeatedly ranked Walmart near the bottom of their ratings for retail stores, with above average complaints and poor quality merchandise. An article about America's top stores in the June 2010 issue begins by suggesting that shoppers "might be better off if they switch stores", and describes prices at JCPenney, Sears, Dillard's and Meijer to be "at least as good" as Walmart. The only store faring worse than Walmart in their ratings is Kmart, by 1 point out of 100. So I'm curious why people think low-income folks are clamoring for a below-average store and average prices. From my own experience, I have to to say that I'm pretty satisfied with the prices at Fiesta, Target and other retailers in the area. There are many better options than Walmart to appeal to budget-minded consumers. For 2), the argument seems to be that the economy is still struggling, and therefore we must accept any economic activity that is offered. And I'll agree that there will be an initial shot of construction related jobs that would be beneficial (of course, any good construction activity would be economically beneficial). However, the follow-on retail jobs are not likely to add much if anything to the Houston economy. A new Walmart does not mean that inner-loopers are suddenly spending an extra $200 or whatever the amount is because of a new store. The money that would've been spent at Fiesta or Kroger or Ace hardware will instead be spent at Walmart. And each affected store will cut their payroll hours to compensate for the drop-off in business. There aren't many net-new jobs in the long-term.

The problem with this argument is that Walmart and other big-box retailers do not necessarily create net-new local jobs. Instead, they take jobs away from existing businesses and may put smaller and independent competitors out of business due to their cost advantages. The net of an argument against Walmart, at least for me, is that the company plays by its own rules and leeches off society. There is considerable cost hidden by the low pricing of the products you find on Walmart's shelves, including the loss of American manufacturing jobs, increased environmental degradation at production moved overseas where rules are less strict had human rights abuses are tolerated, and underpaying store employees who then become dependent on society for food stamps and ER visits for healthcare. Saving a few bucks at Walmart is realistically just shifting problems and costs onto other areas, and we all end up paying the price. It's interesting that someone already brought up the taxpayer-funded feeder reconstruction of I-10. Of course, this is not specifically to benefit Walmart, but there is a history of taxpayer funded or subsidized infrastructure projects for many other Walmart locations. It will be interesting to see if Walmart receives additional assistance for this location, such as property tax breaks. The company has been able to take advantage of smaller communities desperate for their business and mindless to the risks, but in an urban and competitive environment like inner-loop Houston, nobody is that desperate for them to build, so hopefully we don't get stuck subsidizing their business.

Yep...the Honolulu store is the result of high land prices and limited availability as well as limited competition in their market space. I doubt that cost-conscience Walmart would find it economically feasible to build a similar store in a city like Houston.

Thanks for reminding me why I've been keeping a distance from HAIF lately.

Agree. Looking down from the Hilton, there are still an embarrassing number of surface lots that side of DT.

This is from last weekend. Sorry for the bad image quality (phone camera).

11th Street Cafe (because it's within walking distance) and Dacapo's (because of their incredible cake and pie by the slice).

Money that any other business would have paid in taxes.

I don't see a problem with encouraging the use of efficient vehicles. But it'll be interesting to see how they go about it. Smaller parking spaces don't really work because drivers of large vehicles will still use them if at all possible. Nobody really enforces the "compact-only" rule. Marking spots for hybrid vehicles doesn't necessarily work either, because there are different kinds of hybrids (mild and full), and some higher-end hybrids are geared for performance over fuel economy. Ikea has a single parking spot reserved for a hybrid vehicle, and I saw a non-hybrid vehicle parked in the spot last time I was there.

I haven't seen that study, but in my experience, AT&T service is lousy in Houston and just about anywhere else in Texas. I've never had so many dropped calls or bad connections where I can't hear half of what the other person is saying. When my iPhone rings at home, I have to run outside before I answer to reduce the likelihood of those issues. I'm actually in the process of a 30-day trial of Verizon, and must say that I'm having far fewer issues (just one or two calls where the quality suffered for just a second or two). Looks like I'll be porting my number soon...

That new design looks lame. At least the initial design was unique.

I'll pay a little more to fly CO over SW. Part of my reason is that I have Elite status, so the seating and luggage arrangements are definitely better on CO. But there's also the matter of frequent flier miles that don't expire after a year like rapid rewards and are good for international travel on CO and its partners. CO is also more likely to have direct flights. I also don't like the goofiness of the SW flight attendants that SW seems to encourage. I prefer my flight to be a quiet experience and don't want a wannabe comedian telling painfully bad jokes or singing over the intercom when I'm trying to sleep or read something. Maybe that sounds grumpy, but seriously, traveling by air is painful enough as it is.

x2. I'd rather have the option to buy something edible. But I wouldn't be too optimistic about the priced options. It's a known requirement that, in order to get into an airport for sale, food has to be removed of any flavors or quality.

The amalgamation of styling cliches seems to be Hyundai/Kia's niche. Instead of creating original brand identities, they wait for others to come up with original designs, then they draw from the successful ones. It may not be a bad thing, considering the original styling of recent Acuras. The only problem is that most people probably couldn't identify a Hyundai/Kia without looking at the badge.

^ I think he's referring to fantasy. I too would prefer if the complex was unique and less bland-corporate-suburban strip mall, but those attributes don't seem to be hurting business judging from the traffic going in and out of the complex.

Seems about as logical as Manhattan spilling into Central Park.

Shawarma King already exists in Houston. My *guess* is that the availability of authentic middle-eastern food in Houston is one reason that Pita Pit failed. Like you said earlier, who wants an Anglicized version of middle-eastern food? Kind of defeats the point. But maybe there's an opening for Fadi's or Shawarma King to open a chain of small takeout restaurants...

What's interesting is that they're suing the city for $40 million they would have been earned if their original plan had been allowed. But the local economy is in worse shape now than when this high rise was originally proposed in 2007, so I wonder how in today's market they will prove that the original building could be fully leased and as profitable as the suit claims. It almost seems like the city did them a favor by cutting their potential losses.