AtticaFlinch

Don't let that stop you. It hasn't stopped anyone else in this thread.

Can we agree to revisit this in five years? I'd like to make a bet that there will be no significant difference between Walmart's and Target's crime stats. If I win, I'll do something embarassing I guess. If you win, you have to stop being so resolute in your statements about such abstract and unproveable outcomes. Either that, or you have to tell us where you get your tea leaves, because I imagine they must make damned fine tea as they suck at predicting the future.

They can be revised either way, either more lax or more draconian. And, simply because they can be revised doesn't mean they will. Regardless, if there is no ordinance, there's nothing to be revised. Again, give existing homeowners the ability to opt in or out, and make this ordinance mandatory for new buyers and the entire debate disappears. Why can't that be done?

Probably in the name of preserving the neighborhood's character. You know, since that... er... neighborhood has so much... uh... character?

I think you'll find Houston's situation is rather unique. As such, my opinion is based on educated guesswork more than anything else - just like everyone else here. We can be drawn to any number of possible conclusions in order to support our preconceptions. The only thing we know for certain about this ordinance is that it will arbitrarily impose regulations upon homeowners who had purchased their property without the restrictions already in place and without giving them the ability to opt in or out. As to how exactly it'll play out over the decade or so following, we've yet to see. However, another couple things we do know about human behavior is 1) Power corrupts, and 2) Whenever humans panic, we tend to do it as a mob. If a handful of people feel the board start to overextend their power, then you can pretty much guarantee those homeowners will cut their losses and sell. Whether it'll cause a wave of similar activity from other homeowners has yet to be seen. I will say this though, I'm glad I don't have a horse in this race and don't own in the Heights. I'd hate to be a guinea pig in this little experiment.

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

Or you get a real estate panic when a bunch of stock is dumped on the market at the same time, inevitably driving down total values of all homes in the area.

Not where I was going with that, but I like where you're going with it nonetheless. Metahumor rawks the internet. Why not? I'm not saying they're better able to read than you or I, but surely, at least during their training, they've been exposed to the acrimony cause by the ambiguity of certain written laws. And speaking of which, how many tax payer dollars do you think will be spent defending this ordinance in courts if it's passed? I'm betting at least one million dollars. Anyone want to take the over/under?

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

First, Target is in a nearly identical area. Calling it "completely different" is disingenuous at best. Have you seen the place where Walmart wants to build? Fuh realz. Second, you made up your mind before Walmart had an opportunity to interact with anyone. Wasn't your first post about this on HAIF made before the announcement was even officially made? You've crucified Walmart before they even committed the crime you think they've committed. I guess you come from the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later school of thought. You are more like George W Bush than you could ever realize, especially in light of the tenacity to which you hold onto your arguments despite the evidence to the contrary. I'm sure W is sitting in Crawford right now expecting the news of newly discovered WMDs in Iraq too. Geezus. 1) An abatement is not a shakedown. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terminology and learn how this particular project will be affected. 2) There is no cramming. It's a big empty lot with plenty of space for a large development. 3) You have no clue what form of development will take place. You have done nothing to communicate with Walmart and have no idea what this place will look like, have you? You don't know if it's suburban or maybe some new faux urban concept that'll be sure to generate cream in at least a few pairs of shorts. You have no idea. None. You're speaking entirely off conjecture, and you're calling it fact. Why do you have such a blatant disregard for logic when trying to debate something logically? We're not falling for emotions. Good! We're agreed! Let's allow the poor folk decide what's best for themselves and not the landed money in the neighborhood decide what's best for them?

Lawyer joke time! And to complete this circle of humor originality, wait'll you hear the joke I've got about a blonde who walks into a bar! It's a doozy! Do you not find it interesting that both regular professed lawyers on this board, both of opposite ends of the political spectrum, dislike this ordinance?

Say what you want, but your vision of the future has no basis in reality. There are already a number of other fringe communities surrounding the city core with as equally viable housing stock as the Heights, and they're less expensive and have fewer restrictions. If someone were looking to purchase property to build a monster house that ultimately brings up all property values, would you really think they'd do it in an area where they weren't allowed to carry through with their plans? And, if it's as you suggest, and these McVic owners didn't give a turd about the quality of the schools, what's to stop them from going elsewhere? If it doesn't return the Heights to an urban ethnic ghetto, it will at least stem the growth that's so necessary to keep property values rising. It's not about supporting monied interests, as you couldn't have pegged me less accurately. It's about smart growth and compromise. The Heights is still valuable to potential buyers because of the lack of restrictions, and throw a wrench in that, and you've destroyed the single greatest thing about the place. You will have turned it into Woodland lite, and frankly, that's an odd group of people to pursue in the inner city. They add no cultural value to the neighborhood. They suck the life out of it.

It may have been glorious had the poll been conducted of a representative sample. As it is, many of the people who voted against the Walmart on the original poll had signed up to HAIF the day they voted simply to vote. Oh, and they were directed to do so via the Facebook anti-Walmart page. No equal consideration was weighted for the opposition, and no demographic considerations were used to ensure equal weight was given to everyone in the various neighboring communities. The poll is/was useless. As is this one. It doesn't reflect public opinion in any quantifiable way. On this thread, it acts more as a distraction than anything else. It artificially bumps this thread to the top of the New Content page even when no new content has been contributed - and frankly, I doubt any new information will be forthcoming in the future either. This discussion has trod old ground several times over. There will be no fresh arguments, there will be no fresh discussion. This topic has been beaten into the dirt. Everything has been discussed ad infinitum, and the various sides are now entrenched in their opinions and will not be swayed no matter what. All that can possibly happen now is someone will stumble across this thread, and without reading through it, repeat something that's been said five times previously.

I'd argue we've lost more great buildings to neglect than special interests. And, if the cost of maintenance becomes more than the property is worth, people will stop maintaining the properties. At a certain point, it becomes cheaper to demolish the structure or simply let it sit idle and rot than to preserve it. If this historic preservation ordinance passes, I can see how many landowners in the Heights would just say screw it and allow the Heights to return to the ghetto it once was. The whole positive intent of the ordinance relies on the property in the Heights retaining some sense of exclusivity and desireability. If you tell those well monied interests they can't do with their property as they please, you'll start to see those folks spend their money elsewhere, where the restrictions aren't as imposing. I don't have a crystal ball to guarantee this outcome, but when I asked my magic eight ball how accurate my predition was, it replied, "Signs point to yes."

"I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart" You have this one twice - with no "against".

So's the ninja neg. I'd go so far as to say it's unfriendlier. But then, there hasn't been a whole lot of friendly going on in this thread. Also, I want to remind everybody... KPFT, the only completely community sponsored radio station in this town, the radio for peace, the vox populi, is holding an irregular pledge drive due to their lack of success during their last regular drive. I'm a member. (I can afford to be since I shop at Walmart.) If you want to do something good for your community, that would be a hell of a lot better than picketing along Yale Street. It's all about the big picture. KPFT Edit: Btw, thanks for the explanation. I at least understand your negs. Much appreciated.

Like Montrose, Midtown, Rice Military, West End, Downtown, East End, Rice, etc.? It's pretty clear Angostura was speaking of his own experiences.

Yes, I do. Why is that weird? Is this another of your dismissive argumentum ad hominem attacks? I think if someone's going to put forth the effort to dislike something someone else has to say by clicking the dislike button, they owe that person they negged an explanation. I'm genuinely curious what I wrote that touched goavs' nerves in that post. Perhaps your lack of concern for understanding multiple sides of a conflict is why you've entrenched yourself in opposition on this topic - you have a closed mind. Good for you. What's your point? If you think it's lame, why would you click it at all? And don't fret for me, I'm not flipping out over the negative point. I couldn't care less about my HAIF rating. I'm mostly curious as to why the person negged that particular post though. I don't understand why you find that so irrational. I thinking protesting Walmart is a little childish. So what? Why don't you try sharing your opinions about the topic, and not your opinions about me? Sure, I think if I disagree with people I owe them an explanation as to why. I'm childish like that. Why shouldn't people have to explain themselves? You know what, better yet, don't answer that. Just contribute to the Walmart discussion and leave me and my personal distastes for classless stealth disagreements out of this.

To the guy who negged my previous post, could you please provide some insight as to why you did that? I can't for the life of me find a single thing offensive in the post, so I'm curious if you did it because you've somehow convolutedly associated everything I write with being a pro-Walmart, anti-Heights sentiment. Frankly, I don't think you read the post at all. I think you just reflexively negged me, and if that's the case, I think it's stupid. Goavs, I'm talking about you.

Or any site with cultural or ecological relevance. Which this site does not have. As it is, laws are in place to protect our heritage and fragile ecosystems. When development is built on these lands, they either blatantly violate the law or find a way to circumvent the law. Prior to construction on sensitive lands, proper surveys and mitigation (should anything noteworthy be found) must occur. The law already exists, and it exists for good reason. There is no value to the land Walmart wants to build off Yale other than as commercial real estate. Anything remotely close to cultural relevance has already been destroyed in Houston's core long before the laws were ever enacted. In Mexico, they've only recently been enacted, and largely as a response to the Walmart near Teotihuacan. (Hey look, another area where Walmart has inspired positive change!) If you'll note in the article that I'm pretty sure I posted, Walmart is hardly alone in the practice of destroying sensitive lands. The article noted the Tennessee Titans (our beloved Oilers), the state of Georgia and Whole Foods as doing the same things. Plus, it showed a photo of an Old Navy and a TJ Maxx abutting an Indian mound in Oxford, Alabama. Again, part of why I have no problem spending my money at Walmart is because I recognize the problem isn't just with them. It's the whole system that allows Walmart and Whole Foods and Old Navy and TJ Maxx to exist that's the problem. But I've still got to feed my family, and I still have to clothe my kid, so why should I pay more elsewhere to do it when Walmart is convenient and cheaper and no better and no worse than anywhere else I could spend my cash? It's not as if I can buy Hamburger Helper or toilet paper at the farmers market, plus every one of those I go to always have a very limited selection of goods, and they're always more expensive than I would have anticipated. No thanks. So you know, I'm going to pick up a couple gallons of milk from Walmart tonight on the way home from work. You know how much I'll pay for each gallon? $1.88, and the price hasn't changed since I started shopping at the Walmart four or five months ago. The store around the corner from my house sells milk for $2.89 per gallon. Either of the two Krogers equidistant from my house sell milk for $2.49. I haven't priced the HEB nearby, as it's really inconvenient to where I live, plus it's one of those giant suburban ones with mostly higher priced items, but if I recall correctly, the HEB off Buffalo Speedway, where I used to do most of my grocery shopping, sold milk for $2.29. My wife and I don't eat out much, so when I say I spend around $500 per month on groceries, it's no exaggeration. And when I say I'm meticulous about price shopping, I don't exaggerate with that either. I'm not above comparison shopping on my Blackberry while standing in the middle of the store, and I'm not above returning things to one store if I find it cheaper elsewhere. We're a one income family in the middle of a recession trying to ensure our dollars stretch as far as possible. And for that, I'm glad a Walmart is close. And if you don't have a need for inexpensive groceries, I applaud you and the strength of your paycheck. But I doubt your situation is the norm. A lot of people are cutting back and tightening their belts, and a Walmart close to them would certainly help their situation.

I've conceded no such thing. I do now, and have for the past several months, do my grocery shopping at Walmart as I've found it's less expensive than Kroger, Fiesta and HEB on the items for which I shop. This wasn't a luxury I had prior to about four months ago as I lived inside the loop then and didn't have a Walmart nearby. I think I've made it clear the prices are why I shop at Walmart, and that in general, I dislike the company's other policies. My feelings towards Walmart could hardly be called love. Make no mistake, I'm not defending Walmart. I'm defending people's right to shop at Walmart, and I'm defending Walmart's right to build where they please. So now the opposition is based on aesthetics? Now we're getting somewhere. Now we're getting to the root of the issue. If aesthetics is the problem, don't you think it's a pretty flimsy reason to oppose the Walmart? Don't you think it would be wiser to work with the design firm to ensure it's built in a way that allows it to fit into the neighborhood rather than simply oppose the inevitable structure? This is like debating Glenn Beck. All your rhetoric is based on emotion. When logic is presented to counter your rhetoric, you get weepy, insulting and dismissive. I'll take your unwillingness to debate this with me any further as a sign that you admit you have no good solid reasons to oppose this Walmart. This happens when you match logic against emotions in a head-to-head rumble. Where was I uncivil to you? I think you're confusing your behavior for mine. I don't agree to this. If you post something else insubstantive, I'll point out your argument's flaws. I encourage you to do the same for me, and everybody for that matter. It does nobody any good to hold onto ideas and preconceptions that have no basis in reality.

I'm sorry. After you called me an ass, I figured rational conversation had already ended with you. But, why don't you try responding to me? Is it because you can't? Is it because you realize there is no good rational reason to actually oppose the Walmart? I figure as such, especially as you've now resorted to argumentum ad hominem style illogical arguments. And, as I've said, I used to live in the area in this Walmart's sphere of influence. I have a personal interest in Montrose and the West End. I wish the Walmart had been there when I lived there. I was a lot less well-off when I lived in Montrose than I am now. Translation: Does anyone want to validate my opinions for me? Also, point out my hypocrisies if you're going to call me a hypocrite, please. Otherwise, if you can't back up your name-calling, stop calling names.

What's confused me is how every point you've made has been refuted using logic, reason and evidence. Your points are nothing more than emotional ramblings, and I'm confused why you continue to make them despite the overwhelming evidence to contradict it. Good call. I need to get back to reading Les Miserables to my infant. I've wasted to much time on this anyhow. So, what you're saying is, despite the evidence that proves every point you make wrong, you'll still hold onto those beliefs tenaciously and won't ever give them up? Interesting.

Not reading the first 600 posts before retreading territory that had already been thoroughly explored, mapped and settled is what calls your credibility into question. Frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself to you anti-corporate zealots who feel Walmart is of Satan, so now I'm having a little fun with it. If you want to read my and other people's serious responses, you need look no further than the first ten or so pages of this thread. Golly. Your neighborhood sounds really crummy, Missus Wilson. Perhaps you should move. Can you point me to where I attacked you? I just reread my post, and I don't see it. Perhaps I struck a nerve. I think she doth protest too much. None of the above. I'm just trying to challenge you to articulate the real reasons you feel like you do. What is it about this Walmart and this location? If Crosstimbers and Silber are both dandy locations to build, then it's not about the politics of the company. If it's not due to inherent racism or classism considering the stereotype of a Walmart customer, then what is it? If it's not about the pretensions of (some) Heights residents and the fact Walmart is generally considered uncool, then what is it? If it's not about the Mom and Pops as so many of you have professed to never leave them for the evil empire, then what's driving your indignation? If it's not about the rape of small town life considering Houston's not a small town, then what motivates your rage? If it's not about the traffic as any development would affect that currently lightly trafficked street, then it still must be something. If it's not about crime increases or property devaluations as both of those claims have been rendered dubious at best, then I must still know what's driving this weird ideological quest behind the opposition. I must know! What's the real story about this Walmart in this location that's set so many of you sensitive Heightians off? If it's none of those things, then there's nothing left to oppose. And if there's nothing left to oppose, then surely you must see some of the positive benefits Walmart can bring to poor people, and how those positive benefits outweigh the nothing supporting the opposition. So, if Walmart doesn't pay for the upgrades to the entire road, they're shafting you?

Other people don't think it is as simple. Thank god we're in a forum where you don't rule and dissenting opinions outside the cool and popular are allowed to be made. Edit: Also, in regards to this statement of yours, "NO TAX INCENTIVES/ABATEMENTS/380 AGREEMENTS," my understanding of the tax abatements the developer and Walmart are being given is to help offset the cost of infrastructure upgrades, not the construction of the building itself. You do know these are things the city would have to pay for had Walmart not decided to build their massive box, right? Now, out of curiousity, I'd like to see a tax contribution vs. tax spending map of the city of Houston. Do Heights residents actually put in as much cash into their area as is spent?