AtticaFlinch

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.

Last week's Press ran a cover story that said the music scene here was particularly good, though I grant that was for more of what can be called outlaw country or Texas country. Is the quality of the scene here genre specific? I understand hip-hop, the blues and tejano also have a great scene here.

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.

Still really gloomy this morning too. It was a weird drive in.

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?

Doubtless, the link to this poll has been crossposted on the anti-Walmart-in-the-Heights Facebook fan club page. All this righteous indignation coming to HAIF to express itself will be good for editor. Hopefully anybody who has something burning within themselves that needs to be said on the subject will read the 600+ posts already written on the topic first before posting.

God. Do I have to hold your hand? Is it really necessary to use an emoticon to ensure people understand sarcasm? How about this then: [/sarcasm]? That's still considered clever, right? Of course it's been shelved! Now the city doesn't have to pay a dime for the upgrades since Walmart and Ainbinder are on the hook for it. Now we can use the money for better infrastructure upgrades like light rail or HOV lanes on 288. I don't know how the city will divert the funds, but surely now we can spend it on something a little more worthwhile than a street that's essentially nothing more than a shortcut for Heights residents looking to avoid the train. Fine, then it's the Museum District or Montrose Walmart. It can also be the Rice Military, the West End, the Downtown, the Upper Kirby, the River Oaks and the Midtown Walmart.

Taken today, less than an hour ago, for your viewing pleasure: Just to remind everybody, this is the plot of land that adds character to the Heights and brings values up and reduces crime. And this is the road that is in no need of the upgrades Walmart will bring. Vroom vroom!

Good question! Here's an attempt to answer it.

Yeah, nobody. Not one. You picked a fine time to demand verbal precision, Lucille.

The savings is closer to 10 or 20% across the items I shop for regularly dependent on the competitor. And I easily drop $500 a month or more on groceries alone. I also have a kid who outgrows her outfits monthly, plus you have to take into account all of life's other ancillary purchases and the savings adds up quickly.

I don't get why you don't get it. Walmart is evil, but now that I do my grocery shopping there, I save far more than $200/year. I'm likely to save at least half that every month. Only the superwealthy and the superstupid make all their financial decisions based on their politics. Your numbers are wrong, but in this economy, every little bit of savings helps. I can't speak for your fears, but at the same time, depriving so many people of an improved discretionary income because you fear to cross a street with a crosswalk and a traffic light because of your fear is a bad idea. Please. Nobody builds anything without getting government subsidies. You should at least be happy those subsidies will improve the condition of the shoddy infrastructure throughout the area.

Yeah. Seriously.

What are you talking about? Is this just some blithe dismissal meant to belittle my opinion? Whatever. I've carefully considered both sides of this discussion long before we ever debated this particular Walmart, and I ran through all the same arguments so far presented here. Then, I discovered it's better to have an extra nickel in my pocket, and it's better for everyone to have an extra nickel in their pockets, than it is to shut down a single Walmart - unless the land it's built upon has some cultural or ecological value. Apparently, I'm just better than most at prioritizing which parts of my life deserve my ire and which I can be apathetic about. Really? Lot's o' speculatin' goin' on here. What if one used to live in the "neighborhood"? Is the opinion then valid? What if one plans to move into the "neighborhood"? Does the opinion then become valid? It's myopic to continue to drag out this trite canard and shove it down our throat as if it's gospel. Three miles is hardly a limiter inside the loop. This'll benefit everyone in the loop, even the dreaded "others" from parts of the loop too scary to tread. What, are you going to beat me up?

You live in the Heights. You don't live in the same neighborhood as this Walmart either. Oh, and SFW?

1) You don't know any of this to be true. It's all speculation. You have none of the secret boardroom meeting details between Ainbender, HEB or Walmart. You've scapegoated one company in this whole ordeal and lionized another. You have absolutely no idea why HEB pulled out, and even if they did pull out becuase Walmart made a better offer, then ask yourself why HEB didn't counter. Also ask yourself why should Ainbender be forced to accept a lower bid on their property just to make you feel better. They aren't responsible to you. 2) You completely didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you to speculate about the future course of events should the Walmart not build. I asked you in what way forcing the Walmart to not build makes the world any better. I'm curious if the positive benefits of not building the Walmart would outweigh the positive benefits of building the Walmart. Frankly, giving about 500 thousand people a higher quality of life rates higher in my book than preserving the character of a neighborhood for about 30 thousand people. (Which I still fail to see how the character of the Heights will be affected by this Walmart anyhow.) I don't know, why are you acting like "selfish yuppie, hipster, wasp, crybabbies [sic]"? I wish you'd stop already, it's embarrassing to the children.

If normal is the current state, then any development would have a larger than normal impact. That still doesn't merit any special consideration from voters. The basic point is, no one would give a crap if this wasn't a Walmart. If this was a highrise development, HAIF commenters would be saying things like, "Oh man, I sure do wish it had a zillion floors and not just 25," and "You should just be happy they're building that many. Bad economy and all." If it was a midrise development, the comments would be along the lines of, "I sure do hope they put in an Amy's Ice Cream with all the useful ground floor retail," and "Yeah, I could use an Amy's Ice Cream within biking distance. Then I could get my workout and my ice cream all at once tee hee." Some people are full of hate and anger, and very often they don't know why, and they have no clue where to direct it. So they center their impotent rage on the biggest thing around. It's everywhere. It's on the news. It's on the interwebs. It's in damned near every neighborhood and small town in America. It's more American than apple pie and baseball. It's the center of life in some communities. And why not be angry with such an imposing behemoth. It's like all that impotent rage I had against my parents and "the man" when I was a teenager. That's what this rage is against Walmart. It's angst. The world sucks right now. Walmart is clearly a villain. Therefore, let's rail against the beast. The only problem is, Walmart's not the beast. Walmart's the thumbnail on the beast. The entire system is flawed, and raging against this machine is dumb and pointless. It's teenage aggression. It's misdirected anger. Walmart isn't the problem. Walmart has never been the problem. The system that allows Walmart to exist is the problem. But many people don't care. They take their impotent rage and rename it Sancho Panza, and they take off on foolhardy crusades to defeat imaginary monsters. It's against Walmart, and it's against Walmart shoppers. Every other reason given is an after-the-fact justification. There would be no argument then. People would be positively giddy with eager anticipation. Frankly, I don't try to "preserve" anything. The world regularly changes, and I welcome the change. And if you truly think you can manage to keep the world static and unchanging, or even if you merely want it to remain static and unchanging, then I pity you. If you want me to stop being combative, how about you stop mischaracterizing what I've said? I don't think Heights residents are any better than anyone else. Many of you do though (I took the liberty of bolding a statement where you've set yourself apart for your uniqueness from the rest of the residents of Houston in the quoted statement before this one). And it's not because you "care", for whatever that even means. It's because you've blindly jumped on the cool hate-Walmart bandwagon, and you haven't given any real consideration to the impact your position makes - not just on you, not just on your neighbors, but on everyone who lives within the loop and everyone who passes through. Plus, at the end of the day, you don't own this property and therefore have no right to dictate the terms of development for it, not under current law, and to change the law midstream to affect one developer and one buyer reeks of cronyism worse than what already exists - and this time suppossedly in the name of what's right and good.

I take it you're the type of person who wouldn't sacrifice one person to save a thousand. And no, your intent was perfectly understood. What's not understood is how you let the demolition of one apartment complex speak for the plight of all poor people in the area. Surely it sucks that some poor people will lose their crappy homes, but the far greater benefit is that many of those same people will now be able to fill their new crappy homes with more food and functional solutions for modern living. Their buying power will still increase, even if their home base has moved. Why? Not why should we vote, but why do you think the city should put it to a vote? Why should you or I have a say in what happens with this piece of property? No one can articulate a cogent answer to that question. There is not a good reason why. Should we vote every time a new construction project comes up? Or just ones involving Walmart? Or just ones in the Heights? What makes Walmart or the Heights so special? I get that Walmart is the lightning rod for retail run amok, and I get that (some) Heights residents think they're God's chosen people, but c'mon. Just because some people's perception is askew doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge their idiosyncracies. The people of this city shouldn't be forced to the polls every time some virulently vocal minority group gets their knickers knotted up. That group of loudmouths should be slapped on the hand, told to play well with others and stop acting like brats.