RedScare

Is a list of all of the supporting homeowners that signed the list for Heights South available for public record? I would be interested in viewing that approval list but haven't seen such a list online. Is anyone knowledgeable of its location or how I can have access to the list?

I'm sure it is available as part of the petition for historic district status. I would contact HAHC and request it under the Freedom of Information Act (you probably have to appear in person to request it). I know that the group organizing the opposition probably has one, since they are collecting the affidavits withdrawing support for the petition for presentation to City Council(over 15% of petition signers have retracted their support, dropping the support well under 51%). There is no legitimate reason for the list to be kept private. Early on, the list was not available, but I'm sure it is by now.

I think the family made a donation to the park's renovation and asked for a small memorial to victims of 9/11 and this is what happened. I agree that parks are no place for rememberances or tributes. Just think of all the stuff littering Sam Houston Park, Tranquility Park, Hermann Park, or Market Square. We ought to tear out the memorial to the sailors killed on the USS Houston, as well as the WWI monument, the Confederate monuments, the Texas revolution monuments, that sappy WWII memorial in the Heights, the cornball Ghandi memorial in Hermann Park, Dick Dowling's statue, Sam Houston on his horse, the stupid Holocaust museum, and those dumb monuments to the crew of the Challenger and Columbia. I too go to the parks around time to get away from it all, and I don't need some downer monuments reminding me of all the tradgey in the world, or monuments or tributes to some sap that laid his life down for me in some politically questionable way. Out of sight, out of mind is what I say. The greatest thing we could do as a society is just forget that all of this stuff ever happened and start fresh.

Did Lauren lay down her life for you in some politically questionable way?

By the way...

Sam Houston Park...no downer monuments that I've seen.

Tranquility Park...no downer monuments, but if you believe the moon landing was staged I could see your offense.

Sam Houston...died of pneumonia, monuments celebrate his life.

Dick Dowling...died of yellow fever, monument celebrates one of Houston's greatest saloon keepers (at least to me).

Holocaust Museum...private musueum on private land

Ghandi...you may have a point, but the monument celebrates his life and achievement, not his death.

The servicemen, and shuttle crews...I'll give you those, though they died in service to their country.

Oh, and the garden does look nice.

There used to be a HEB pantry market on 11th and Yale. It closed because the neighborhood gentrified and no longer supported a discount grocer.

Could you provide a source for this comment. I do not recall that being the reason this store closed...and I used to shop in it.

If this is true, what explains the growing values of homes in the Norhill that were posted about earlier? Historic, deed restricted and continues to grow in value. My friends who live in a nicely renovated 2/2 on 14th, which is a less desirable street due to the traffic, have seen their home increase in value to the tune of $50k in the 4 years since they bought it.

I don't find $50,000 in 4 years to be particularly impressive, considering that my home in a non-restricted area has increased at twice that rate. In 2006-7, houses were appreciating at 8-10% on average in the Heights. Assuming that house was worth $300,000 at purchase, a $50,000 increase in 4 years is a little less than 4%.

There are those predicting wholesale market value collapse if this passes.

Anyone predicting big changes on either side is making things up for shock value. The change will be subtle, except for the sudden drying up of new construction. As less money is invested in the neighborhood, prices will slow and stagnate.

People who buy into historic neighborhoods are in for the long haul. I doubt that speculators and flippers make better neighbors.

Since you are a renter in Montrose, you can be forgiven for not understanding how Heights real estate generally works. For one, most Heights properties sell in well under 10 years. For example, on my block, only 4 homeowners have been here 10 years. I am one of the longest term owners at 6. This is likely longer than many neighborhoods, but in today's transient working world, few homeowners stay long term. Then there is your typical Heights buyer. They have money, but they do not want to spend it fixing up a home. They want it done before they get here. While there are a few of us who recognize the value of sweat equity (why do you think we oppose the restrictive historic ordinance?), we are in the distinct minority. Interestingly, it is likely to be flippers and speculators who have the time and resources to learn the ins and outs of the new restrictive ordinance, and who will use it to their advantage. So will renovators and architects, who will charge a premium for "knowing how to navigate the historic district rules". Things will still get done for those who are willing and able to spend the extra money. Only those of us who do not have those large sums to waste will be shut out.

Then there is the whole "historic neighborhood" thing. The Heights will not function like a small distinct historic neighborhood, such as Old Sixth Ward. It will be huge. Most people will not even realize what they are buying into until they plan their first renovation. Sure, there will be a notice in the closing papers, but most will not read it or contemplate its effect. It is the nature of home buying. Few people put much research into it.

I have no special knowledge of the numbers. According to the staff report filed on the City web site "Pending Designation" page the numbers were as follows:

"Of the 761 total tract owners, 405 tract owners signed petitions in support or 53.22%. The total land area of tracts whose owners signed in support of the designation constitutes 51.27% percent of the total land area within the proposed district."

That staff report probably reflected the count going into the meeting. The boundaries were adjusted slightly during the meeting to maintain the legally required percentages. I know that some dislike the fact that the adjustment happened, but they would have liked a sub-majority even less.

And no, I would not say that an application signed by only 12% of the owners/ownership should be accepted. Once the application was accepted, the percentage "support" (whatever that means -- vocal support? grudging support? non-objection?) became legally moot.

Yeah, I finally found that report. I doubt the numbers are anywhere close to that today, with the proposed new rules on the table. The number one selling point back in 2007 to get people to sign was the 90 day waiver. They recited it over and over like a mantra. Funny (or not) that now they claim that everyone knew the 90 day waiver was never intended to be permanent.

I also found it ironic that the report used my house as an example of one of the styles of housing stock. Sucks that they are using my own house against me.

I have no idea where you heard the 12% number, but that's not how the process works. At the time of certification of an application (under the ordinance currently in effect), the owners of 51% or more of the properties in the affected area, owning in aggregate 51% or more of the area of the properties in the affected area, must have signed the petition. Up until the public hearing for the HAHC meeting at which the application was certified, signers could be removed or added. (Both happened.) Similarly, the edge boundaries could be adjusted up until the HAHC voted to certify the application. (This also happened.)

At the time of the vote, the HAHC certified that >51% of the ownership (in both senses) of the proposed historic district had signed to approve the application (and not rescinded their approval), as required by ordinance.. The remaining <49% or so may have declined to sign the application, eluded contact, signed and retracted, wanted to sign but never got around to it, hated the idea, or just not cared; we don't know how many fall into which category.

Application for designation of an historic district shall be initiated by either:

(1)The owners of at least 51 percent of the tracts in the proposed district, which tracts shall constitute 51 percent of the land area within the proposed district exclusive of street, alley and fee simple pipeline or utility rights-of-way and publicly owned land, as determined by the planning official. In case of a dispute over whether the percentage requirements have been satisfied, it shall be the burden of the challenger to establish by a preponderance of the evidence through the real property records of the county or counties in which the proposed historic district is located or other public records that the applicants have not satisfied the percentage requirements; or

(2)The HAHC upon instructing the planning official to prepare an application for designation.

That's pretty much what angers those of us in South Heights. We've never seen nor been told how our neighborhood was recommended for consideration. Clearly, they did not have enough signatures back in 2007, since we were left out of the application that included Heights East and West. If you look at the list of properties that signed on to the application that is posted on the HHA website, it is clear that less than 20% of Heights South signed on. It would be nice if our elected officials would actually be honest enough to tell us how our neighborhood got included, but they have been way to busy trying to jury rig the voting process to be open and honest about it. Given current sentiment in South Heights, I feel strongly that option number 2 is how it happened. The 12% figure is probably the percentage of signatures garnered for the failed homeowner application attempt.

If you have access to the real numbers, I'd love to see them.

By the way, you never answered my question. If the number of supporters in South Heights was only 12%, would you support rejecting the application?

I just got back from talking to a neighbor who remodeled his home. Bearing in mind that we live in a non-historic section of the Heights, he was forced to present his plans to the Planning Department (apparently because South Heights historic designation was already in the works), then was denied a permit. He had to request a variance, submit a detailed plan, build a scale model of the proposed remodel (I know, I saw it), and petition the neighbors (we all signed off on it), just to get a permit. The crazy part was that he had to do this in order to get rid of a poorly done remodel by a previous owner. It was very expensive and time consuming. He had to stay an extra 2 months in the rent house in order to accomplish all of the City's demands. And this was for a remodel that the City employees told him would be welcomed in the Heights (it is).

Another interesting fact that the city people and a Heights Association board member told him. Because of the way the voting is structured, only 12% of total South Heights property owners approved the petition to make my neighborhood an historic district. For all of the accusations about misinformation, the supporters never actually give out real statistics like these. They claim a majority support the new ordinance, and that only builders and realtors oppose it. The fact is, 88% of South Heights property owners did not support the OLD LESS RESTRICTIVE petition, yet it was presented for approval. The neighbor I spoke of above was one of the signers. He has now signed a removal of his signature, as could be expected after being run through the wringer getting his plans approved.

My question to supporters on this forum: If 88% of a neighborhood oppose designation of the neighborhood as historic, do you still feel the designation and restrictive provisions should be imposed on them?

Didn't read all the responses, too many but The Woodlands is one of the best master planned communities in the state. It is a township now with great tax rates.

Great tax rates? Hardly. They have come down a bit in recent years as MUD bonds have been paid down, but Woodlands taxes are still higher than Houston taxes. Depending on the village, some are as much as 40% higher (Creekside). Most are 5-10% higher than Houston's combined rate.

It seems that the approach here is to bully and call names like school kids. I really do understand your position. I just don't agree with it. Therefore we will have to agree to disagree. This can be done without resorting to lobbing of insults along the lines of "ignorant slobs", references to other neighborhoods as ghettos and accusations of propaganda. There are actually very few people who have been posting on this topic. It's a discussion of about five with entries here and there from others like me who usually monitor posts, but don't chime in. I now know why. It's not really a discussion as much as it is a bully forum where the approach is to quash an opposiing viewpoint with personal insults.

I believe Houston has matured to the point of understanding the need for preserving its history through Houston style restrictions. Houston Heights is the one neighborhood in this city that is known for its history. The OSW and other neighborhoods have beautiful historical architecture worth preserving, but HH has the reputation of being Houston's "historic neighborhood." Many volunteers have put in countless hours over the last 30 years to make this neighborhood what it is.

Restrictions and ordinances affecting our property change all the time and they may change again this time.

This is not a bully and name calling situation so much as forcefully pointing out the callousness of your position. You and others claim that your position and this ordinance protects the character and history of the Heights. It does no such thing. The ordinance allows hideous and grotesque additions such as camelbacks, while refusing hardiplank and aluminum clad windows on the basis that it is not period specific. It is hypocrisy. But, the part of your posts that really makes me angry is your glib assertion that I must submit to the authority of you and a few others simply because they've put in some time trying to take control of my property under the guise of protecting the historic Heights. You gloss over the fact that these pretty houses are our HOMES, where we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds or thousands of hours. You ignore the fact that this ordinance takes control of the biggest investment I have without allowing me a vote, and AFTER I bought here.

dbigtex brings up a valid point. Most historic districts are enacted in an attempt to arrest declining property values in old neighborhoods by designating them "historic". They usually have wide support as the neighbor hope to stem the decline and improve the neighborhood. The exact opposite approach is in play here. There have been tens of millions of dollars invested in the Heights without the need for an historic district. The statements of the supporters indicate that it is the investment in Heights property...often by way of new construction...that they aim to stop. Many supporters have claimed that the new builds are pricing them out of their bungalows. The intent of the historic district is to STOP the increase in property values, not increase them. Sure, they engage in doublespeak, claiming "studies" show increases, but those studies deal with neighborhoods in decline. The Heights most assuredly is not in decline. And, while the ordinance will not cause the Heights to decline, it will cause it to STAGNATE, as the money currently being invested in the Heights will move across the freeway to the North Side. Derelict and unappealing structures in the Heights will be protected from demolition. As Heights homeowners realize the time and expense of renovations and additions that must traverse the HAHC minefield, they will simply choose to move instead of update. Subconsciously or secretly, perhaps the supporters want this to happen. Perhaps they believe that when unappreciative types like myself sell out and move across the freeway, like-minded Heights lovers will move in. But, there are only so many who can afford to do this stuff, and many do not like the restrictions. This will cause home values to stagnate.

This cannot be stated enough. The supporters are taking a macro view of this whole thing, ignoring the individuals who actually own the homes. "The Heights is historic", they say. But, the Heights is an area filled with individual homeowners who must pay for those upgrades. All of them have budgets. When the tighter restrictions demand more architectural design fees, more expensive materials and more time consuming review and supervision, planned projects will be shelved. Not all of them. But, a significant number of them. Others will be delayed. As investment in the individual Heights homes slows or dries up, the area stagnates as a whole. Try applying the restrictive ordinance on a house by house basis...which is how the houses are owned...and see if your logic holds up. It doesn't. This is why I and others oppose this ordinance.

The worst part of this land grab is that, by and large, the Heights is not even historic in the strictest sense. Sure, there are some properties here and there that have historic significance, but not most of them. The fact that the "historic" ordinance allows for such grotesque modifications (as long as it is not on the front) acknowledges such. This ordinance is killing an ant with a hammer. It is a solution looking for a problem. And, it imposes restrictions on homeowners who neither want nor need them. There are names for people who believe it is OK to use the government to control others unnecessarily, and I intend to use those names. Because that is what is going on here.

"These people" include me and I also don't like the camel backs. Those are what builders think are easy ways to increase square footage. They are the ones who want to bulldoze your house and mine.

Don't indicate that "all" people devoted to their homes are against this ordinance. I am like you in that I love our house and we take care of it. It is that love of our house that casues me to want to ensure that it is worth more than the land on which it sits. That will not happen unless the demolitions and incompatible construction by speculative builders cease.

We are not focusing on the angry that don't want to discuss anything at all. The attention is on the more reasonable who are willing to work together to hash out disagreements and develop a better ordinance. Not everyone, including me, will be entirely happy with the final product. It is expected that there will also be people, like you, who won't be happy at all about it.

Without stronger protections your 90+ year old house will be worth nothing but the land on which it sits. I have a right to not have that happen to my house. I also have a right to not have huge Mcmansions blocking the sun in the backyard and invading my privacy. Don't tell me your rights are more important than mine. That's not the Houston Heights I know.

Without protections, my 90 year old house has increased in value faster than in the historic districts. Don't make up crap and throw it out here expecting me to buy it. I live here. I know what is going on here. Your propaganda is intended for non-residents who do not know any better. As for your rights, they do NOT extend to restricting mine.

I won't waste my time explaining what the large homes built on my block have done to raise my property value, as you and others are being willfully ignorant on the subject. Besides, demonizing builders, realtors and McMansions is simply subterfuge on your part to justify restricting my property rights. Every time I bring up my right to preserve my property in the manner I feel is best, you go straight to bringing up builders and dozers. Well, it ain't working. I am not a builder or a realtor. That sign in front of my 90 year old house was put there by me!

If the final ordinance only restricts you and your neighbors, I'll be fine with it. If you want to spend the extra time and money dealing with extra reviews by the city, knock yourself out. But leave me out of it. The home values in my hood are where they are for a reason. We don't need your help screwing them up.

*A note about the stinkin' camelbacks. Look at your stupid architectural guide. That BS HAHC actually touts that crap as a way to conform to their restrictions. Don't blame the builders for that sheet. That is YOUR idea of attractive architecture. I have no intention of letting architecturally ignorant slobs obtain control over my house. And that makes you and your fellow supporters the opposition. I will fight every move you make on South Heights.

The supporters were definately better organized last night. The majority of them were also more rational. The opponents suffer from an angry disposition that doesn't play well in that type of situation. The property rights argument appears to be losing steam because the supporters have a point that they have the right to maintain their investments and what they bought into. My version of property rights may not be your version. It can be argued both ways.

There's also growing realization among the Mcmansion types that no protection could mean that the little bungalow next door gets replaced in favor of density. The Heights has been lucky so far. However, take a little drive down west 15th street between the Blvd. and Shepherd...consider the townhomes being built over at the ole Ashland Tea House site or the condos currently planned for Studewood behind Someburger. Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

The count last night was roughly 40/30 in favor of stronger protections. Among the 30 who stated their opposition, four were from one property on Kipling, one was from the Houston Property Rights Association (who said he is actually a renter), one was from the Houston Association of Realtors, two were part of the trio of realtors who have formed the anti-preservation website, one worked for one member of that realtor trio and at least one was a Heights builder.

It seems as if the more the facts get out there, the more people are calming down. CM Lovell indicated at city council this week that a new draft is being compiled. I'll bet it will incorporate a lot of the suggestions that have been made. This is the sausage-making process that always occurs with the crafting of new legislation.

Think about what might happen with no protection and instead of misinformation about paint color, air conditioners and front porch lights, grab a sausage link and take part in the messy process to create a better proposal?

My house has had no protection for 90 f'in years! Guess what? It's still standing and being taken care of by someone who can't stand the thought of people taking away his right to decide what is best for his property. I'll be blunt. I have talked to very few people who know as much about what is historically and architecturally correct about my house that support this ordinance, and I doubt that you or s3mh do, either. These people think that adding 2 story additions to the back of a bungalow is architecturally appropriate. It's not. It looks like sheet! These are the people that want control of my house. This is not about architectural integrity and historic preservation. This is something altogether different. The people most devoted to their homes are all against this ordinance, including me.

Let me make something VERY clear. I have not calmed down. Be careful bringing your propaganda to my door, because I really am that angry.

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

I'm telling ya, I really do! This insistence of my neighbors that their wish to look at pretty bungalows gives them the right to take over design of my house by government fiat, plus the belief that they can decide which retailers build stores several miles away, has just about soured me on liberal ideals. I believe in helping my neighbor, not telling him how to keep his house. It is rather stunning that some people feel so strongly that they can do this. It's not like I'm building a mosque next door to them or something.

If they only wanted to restrict themselves and their districts from doing anything, I'd be fine with it. After all, I have no desire to tell Norhill residents or North Heights residents how to live. But, they are not satisfied with simply legislating themselves out of house and home, they want to come down to South Heights and do it to me.....without letting me vote on my own property!

Misery loves company, I guess.

As usual, we are in agreement for the most part, but your last sentence got on my nerves: some of us brown people are angry about walmart as well!

Inside joke. Go peruse the Heights Kroger thread for an explanation.

But still, it does irritate me a bit, though.

It does me, too, but this is the world we live in. Everyone must be publicized, memorialized and remembered. Just as people on Facebook clamber for friends, and Twitter users beg for followers, every 6 year old who calls 911 is hailed as a hero, and every person who dies must have a charity or event named after them, or a memorial built in their honor, even if it is simply a cross on the street where they died. Our parents used to visit the gravesite of lost loved ones, but these days we must let the entire world know that our sister or brother died.

Just as I have experienced 'charity fatigue', I also have 'memorial fatigue', and 'hero fatigue'. But, it is only a small part of the park. You are not required to observe a moment of silence in the garden. There are bigger battles to be fought, such as protecting Angry White People from the indignity of a Walmart near the Heights.

Call me heartless, but that "Lauren's Garden" just doesn't sit well with me.

It is rather insensitive to put a 9/11 memorial right around the corner from a mosque, isn't it?

This is really the last stand for the historic buildings in the Heights. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

Where's a crying Indian when you need one. Oh, here we go...

Seriously, can we lay off the 'bungalows as people' rhetoric? Your argument is that a 90 year old house, one of thousands in Houston and 10s of thousands in the US, is more important than the person who owns it, so important that the government may swoop in and effectively take it from me, merely allowing me to live in it, but only if I fix it up the way they say. It is all so disgusting, so reminiscent of a communist country. I mean, really, people stood up in public and said this district is 'for the greater public good'? It's all just about enough to make me barf in my historic spitton on my back porch.

Heights Boulevard is a thoroughfare - but not a major one.

MAJOR THOROUGHFARE: Major, multimodal streets in urban areas (arterials and collectors) which are designed to complement and support adjacent land uses.

On the Heights Assoc web site, under History of the Blvd: "The blocks were carefully arranged, scattered open spaces supplemented the 60 foot-wide esplanade on Heights Boulevard, a broad, tree-lined central thoroughfare patterned after Commonwealth Avenue in Boston."

Commonwealth Ave. in Boston is considered a parkway and a thoroughfare - not a major thoroughfare.

Maybe you should look at the City of Houston's designations of major thoroughfares, rather than the Heights Association. It is the City, afterall, that configures and rebuilds the roads, and they are the ones that designated it a major thoroughfare.

I suspect that you do not really know what Walmart's plans are regarding the east side. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that Walmart's long term plans include stores on the east side as well. They simply are currently building on the north side, west side and central Houston. But...and I know that you aren't suggesting to the contrary...this isn't about the best location for a Walmart, but whether Walmart has a right to build in this location. And, assuming they account for the drainage and traffic concerns, Mayor Parker has stated pretty clearly that they do.

Your complaints notwithstanding, the City has designated the Waugh/Heights/Yale streets as a major thoroughfare. It is the City's intention that traffic use these streets, as opposed to the smaller ones nearby. Walmart is planning to build exactly where the City traffic planners want them to. If the City intends for larger developments to locate along the major thoroughfares, it seems a bit of a stretch to believe that they would then block what they planned to happen...that high traffic developments locate on major thoroughfares.

Not trying to start nothing, but they have Houston as the #38 best, 40th in population and 17th in GDP, While they have Atlanta as the #40 best, 39th in Population and 15th in GDP. Are those Population numbers and GDP numbers correct? I thought Houston's Metro and GDP was larger.

You may be right. Here is a list posted in April.

My link

However, other lists have Houston behind both Atlanta and Dallas, though those lists seem to all be from 2005. The numbers are all over the map. Population-wise, Houston is larger than Atlanta in every way measured.

Wal-Mart said the change would allow it to focus on theft by professional shoplifters and its own employees, who together steal the bulk of merchandise from the chain every year, rather than the teenager who occasionally takes a candy bar from the checkout counter.

This statement is a big deal. Organized thieves are such a problem that the Texas legislature changed the law a few years back to deal with this. Normally, a defendant must be prosecuted in the county in which the crime occurred. Organized thieves stealing at numerous JC Penney stores, for example, could only be prosecuted for the thefts in that one county, even though they would hit stores in Harris, Fort Bend and Montgomery. Now, one prosecutor can prosecute for the total amount of theft from all the stores if they prove that it was part of one scheme or plan.

But, I digress.

Listen, I don't have the time to tear through the data, nor do I care to. Since I live in an old bungalow, I regularly search HAR for other old bungalows to see what the going rate is. So, when Red mentioned $75/sq ft in his post, I knew there was a misunderstanding of what was being said. And I didn't cherry pick the data. As I stated, I took the output as it came across, did 5 simple calcs, and realized there must have been a misunderstanding. I did NOT cherry pick the $/sq ft data. I just looked at the first five, which happened to be the most expensive in raw dollars. I'm sure there were others that were even more expensive per sq ft, especially as you get to the smaller houses (1000-1100 sq ft).

Why is it that you consistently try to elevate everything into such ugliness? I think the name calling and stereo-typing is tired and unnecessary incidentally.

That was a typo. I corrected it to $275, apparently right after you read it.

I wonder if the city is planning on taking any land with eminent domain for the street/sidewalk. That'll be a *hitstorm!

Not really. The developer owns land all the way up the street. They would simply donate a few feet of ROW to the City so that the improvements can be made.

Crime at Wal-Mart is in large part committed in the parking lot. Now that everyone drives SUVs, it is very easy to pull a weapon on someone as they go to get in their vehicle. If you have two SUVs parked side by side, the crime will not be seen unless someone is in very close vicinity. Add to that the fact that Wal-Mart parking lots are massive, the fact that lower income people tend to not have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash, and the fact that most Wal-Marts are sited by major highways for easy getaway, and you have a great place to commit a crime. If Wal-Mart goes in on Yale, it will definitely be a high crime location.

Please allow me to call you a liar. You have no idea what the percentages or numbers or even types of crime committed at Walmart is, but you made this statement up to further your goal of opposing this store. How do I know that you made it up? Well, I am in the crime business, as those who began posting more than a couple of months ago are well aware. I know more about Walmart crime (and Target, JC Penney, Kroger, HEB and Valero crime) than likely anyone on this forum. I know that your statement is an outright fabrication.

I know J008 pretty much covered it but the recent lawsuit filed against Walmart discusses how it has actually been their corporate policy to not have security in their parking lots. Another cost saving measure to keep their low-but-steadily-increasing-at-more-than-50%-on-some-items prices down. There was an architect present at one of the public Stop Walmart meetings who discussed several reasons why Walmarts have so many crimes. The large, large parking lot with no security is one, having no windows is another, being open 24 hours was yet another factor.

I would venture to say that crimes are perpetrated against Walmart shoppers, rather than committed by them. They are easy targets for the reasons listed.

This is also largely incorrect, but I don't think this poster made it up on purpose, he's just listening to non-experts. I can't speak to corporate policy, but virtually every Houston area Walmart has both inside and parking lot security. Theft is a big expense for Walmart, and they spend a lot of money to combat it. They have very high tech surveillance systems and personnel manning it and apprehending shoplifters. I know several of them personally, since I deal with the aftermath (the criminal charges that are filed). This brings us to why Walmart is considered "high crime". It is because they catch so many shoplifters it skews the numbers. Crime statistics are based on actual incidents and arrests. If a store catches more shoplifters, the stats reflect more theft. By comparison, those stores that do not have good security will show less theft in the stats. And, while there is some crime in any parking lot, it is dwarfed by the shoplifting occurring inside the stores. All one needs to do for proof is look at the percentages of crimes committed citywide. Property crimes account for 83% of all crime, and Theft accounts for 60% of all property crime.