AtticaFlinch

So what! What is wrong with advocating for ones own self interest?

Lots, especially if your selfishness can unnecessarily harm or disadvantage other people. That said it may be refreshing to hear it anyhow. In fact, it would be the first time on this thread someone opposing the Walmart construction was honest about their reasons. I really wish someone would say that rather than continue to wrap up their disdain in the same-ol' retreaded sanctimonious BS of which we're becoming so familiar.

That is the only reason Wal Mart exsists is to promote their self interest.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of Walmart. On a macro level, I have a huge problem with Walmart. Their blatant disregard for valuable archaeological sites is like a knife in my archaeologist heart. Then again, I recognize this isn't entirely Walmart's fault. (Hell, this article lists the Tennessee Titans, the state of Georgia and Whole Foods (?!) as also being bad corporate stewards to important American Indian burial and other heritage sites.) Our lax laws, our disregard for our past and the ridiculously high cost of living makes Walmart and its practices an inevitability. If you want to protest Walmart as a company, I'm right there with you. If you want to protest our values as a nation, I'm on board. If you want to protest our paucity of corporate restrictions, I'll join the picket line with you. But, on a micro level, I appreciate my Walmart. Having one nearby sure has freed up my disposable income. If you were smart, you'd let it free up your disposable income too.

Edit: I can't think of a better selfish reason than that. Can you?

The only altruistic argument I have heard is the one that WalMart will somehow help the low income folks and that residents should shut up and support this greater good, less they be called elitists.... or worse yet HIPSTER elitists.

I know! What jerks we are! How dare we put the welfare of others before you!

Edit: Also, much earlier in the thread I proofed out how this Walmart would be better for the environment than forcing people to drive farther out. It's not necessarily altruistic, but it is planet positive and falls in line with my KPFT membership.

Seriously, Are there really that many Hipsters? In the Heights? against Wal Mart? and that are "elite"?

No, there aren't. But the ones who are there sure are loud.

Wal-Mart can be defeated. Spring Valley stopped them. Helotes stopped them. And those efforts were nothing compared to what Wal-Mart is up against in the Heights.

Two weeks won't stop Wal-Mart. But the councilman that requested the deferral may be a start. The developers are counting on a 380 agreement with the City to make this development happen. To date, no such agreement has been reached. Political support for such an agreement is erroding very quickly. That is what happens in a democracy, even without zoning.

Alright, let's run with this. Let's say you're successful. Let's say the Walmart doesn't build. If that happens, what have you accomplished? All your talk of corporate tyranny, democracy and noble and just causes, what did you do? What did you achieve? How did preventing the Walmart from building make the world better?

Preservation of a neighborhood's character isn't making the world better, and that's all you've achieved. Stop mythologizing your quest. You're slaying windmills, not giants. Your quest isn't noble, it's a farce. Preventing this Walmart won't make Walmart a better corporate citizen. It just robs poor people within the loop of their hard won earnings, and it robs your neighbors of convenience. Your goal isn't noble. Your goal is selfish.

No. We're not doing this. You continue to quote out of context, then distort our meanings.

Go quote yourself.

Well, rather than continue to just naysay my understanding of what little context was present, why don't you explain what you meant, but this time clearly? Clear communication is a good way to avoid being misunderstood, if I was indeed misunderstanding you. Perhaps it'll help if I explain the path to my own conclusions, and you can tell me where I erred. In reading your statement, my initial thought was that you must be saying since Walmart's supposed building plan included the bulldozing of one single solitary low-income apartment complex, then that must be wryly conclusive evidence Walmart doesn't actually benefit any and all people who live in low income housing. Am I right so far? Because I didn't think so. I thought, "How ridiculous that I'd think that's what dbigtex meant, especially as he's proven to be reasonable and generally above bad logic and hyperbole." But what else could it have meant, what else could it have meant? I stretched the openings into the darkest recesses of my brain hoping that somewhere within would lie a clue as to what you meant. You're above piss poor logic and inflated exaggeration, at least you have been in the past, so surely you must have an alternate reason, something I hadn't considered. I clambered through my brain searching for other permutations in logic, and I followed individual thought patterns, though mostly to dead-ends. At one point, near the end of my patience, I stumbled across the assumption that indeed, surely dbigtex understood this to be the only possible set of poor people this Walmart would benefit. Otherwise, his (your) statement could only possibly be pointless and wrong. I knew there was no way for you to avoid being wrong, but I didn't want your statement to be pointless and wrong.

Yes, this is an accurate retelling of how I reached that conclusion as, like you, I never hyperbolize. And resultingly, that's what I went with. That's what I wrote for the whole world to see. That's how I publicly interpreted your words. But, you've told me I was wrong, and you told be I'm being wrong deliberately. So I asked you to clarify your statement, but again, you just told me I'm being deliberately wrong. You haven't given me any insight into this "context" of which you speak so elusively, but hopefully someday perhaps we can reach those dizzying heights of lucidity. Hopefully someday I can know just what the hell you meant. For now, you just appear churlish, and as if you're avoiding giving an explanation for what you meant. But I pretty sure I'm probably being deliberately wrong about that too.

Are you referring to Wal Mart Co as the inferior people?

No. I think most of the people opposed to the Walmart think Walmart's shoppers are inferior. Otherwise, I have a hard time justifying the numerous references to peopleofwalmart.com, crime increases and property devaluations.

nope...it won't....We went from having no wal-marts until you get to either Meyer Park or Tidwell and 290 to 3 within 10 miles in the loop...lol

I-10 & Silber

I-10 & Yale

I-45 & Crosstimers/Fulton

Thanks!!

Awesome, but still, I can't help wishing they'd build more. There is still a shortage of Walmarts accessible to the innerloop compared to the number of Targets.

Maybe the more relevant inquiry should be what are the true motivations for people who support cramming a suburban style big box retailer that has a proven track record of having a negative impact on the surrounding area in terms of crime, traffic and small business opportunity into one of the few neighborhoods left in the City of Houston that has not been consumed by big box retail and PUD hyperconformity?

Because none of what you just said has been proven. None at all. And, it's a little weird you point to the 'burbs as a hyperconformist area, but in another thread you support the hyperconformity of historic districts. It's not that you don't want hyperconformity, you just want the hyperconformity to fit within your vision.

Is it class envy?

Turning the tables on the rhetoric, huh? No, it's not class envy. Especially considering the majority of the people who will be positively affected by this won't be in whatever class you consider yourself. Another wickedly elitist talking point from S3mh though. I wonder if you can even understand how douchey the accusation of class envy sounds. Everybody wants more money. I don't understand where you're going with that.

Is it a bizarre schadenfreude to hope that unique character of the Heights and West End are crushed by the big box retailers and cookie-cutter residential developers?

Oh, that's where you're going. Well, how about this? I'll admit to exacting a little bit of pleasure out of seeing some prissy, hipster elitists squirm because their vision of utopia is being forced to allow other inferior people in. But, that doesn't motivate me to support the building of this Walmart. I support it because as I now take advantage of Walmart's low prices (and they are considerably lower than the competition), I also wish I'd been able to take advantage of those low prices while a Montrose or Greenway resident. I'm certain there are plenty of people, maybe outside your social circle, who feel the same way.

Is it a belief that democracy should simply bow down before deep pocketed developers and retailers and give them anything they want, regardless of what the community may think?

No. But if you'd read many of the supporters' comments rather than ignore them as seems more obvious, you'd find there is a strong commitment to independence and personal responsibility. We do support the builders and the land owners doing with their property what they deem fit. It is, after all, their property. By your logic, non-religious people should be able to tell churches they can't build nearby, and homes without children should be able to tell school districts they can't build nearby. For that matter, since a home doesn't have kids, they should be able to choose whether or not they pay school taxes. It is all up to the individual to determine everything about the environment that immediately surrounds him, right? Wrong. The individual can control what happens within his house, so long as he doesn't violate the law and doesn't hurt anyone. That's it. Any more than that, and you become the very thing that you're complaining about.

Is it a hatred of all that has resulted from popular resistance movements in the US (racial integration, labor laws, abortion rights, gay rights, environmental protection, etc.)?

Oh please. Protesting a Walmart building near your neighborhood is nowhere near on par with those movements. It's embarassing you continue to make this comparison.

Or is it that the evidence against a big box supercent smashed into the West End/Heights area is so overwhelming that the only tactic left is to personally insult people in the community who dare to speak out, dare to organize, dare to participate in their democracy, dare to stand in the way of corporate profits in order to protect their community?

Well no, but then again, there is no evidence overwhelming against this Walmart! And you have a bad perception problem, because these attacks against your weak arguments aren't attacks against you personally. Unless you are a racist or a classist. In which case, you do suck at life.

I will tell you that the Wal-Mart opposition is nothing like the caricatue you have invented. The Wal-Mart opposition is made up of people of all ages and from all walks of life. Some have spent a lifetime working for the Heights and West End communities, and some are participating in their community for the very first time. You can put them down all you want, but that will not change a thing. While you think you have made a differene by bullying a few people who are against Wal-Mart on a message board with your insults, the thousands who are joining together are making a difference. It is no coincidence that the application for the reverse curve variance on Koehler was tabled for two weeks to require further study.

And you can mischaracterize the support all you'd like, but that doesn't change anything either. If you think two weeks will stop the Walmart, then clearly you've never witnessed community opposition to a Walmart before play out in the local press and the courts. I said it near the beginning of this thread, without an ecological or cultural reason to oppose this store, the community has no chance in defeating it. If over half of all residents of the Heights and all other areas within a ten mile radius opposed it, and signed a petition to prove it, this store wouldd still get built. Houston, TX is the wild west of real estate, and cronyism still exists, but it exists for those with the deepest pockets. There's no other way to say it, but you're SOL. Redirect your energies to a fight worth having. If you don't like Walmart's business practices, pressure your congressman into passing some retail reform laws. Otherwise, you're hurting people this store could benefit in your zeal to make your neighborhood just a little more pretentious.

"Guise" probably is not the right word. Try "symptom". And you should tack on "within our society" to the end of the sentence.

I'll grant you the word change to symptom. I actually struggled with what word to use, and at the time, guise seemed best. In retrospect, you're right about that. But, I don't think it's symptomatic of our society alone. I think the fear of the others and, to a lesser extent, the protection of our own are what's motivated all human social interaction for most of human history. I also think it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of individuality that we humans started learning to be motivated by ideas far less insular. However, that doesn't mean we're all at that point, or even that any one of us is at that point always. If we were conflict would disappear, and everybody would have a let and let live attitude about pretty much everything.

I quoted 'Animal Farm' on another Heights thread recently, and I'm reminded of it again. Although the issue is very different here, the characters are present, it seems.

If I remember correctly, I positive repped that post - mostly because I wish I'd thought of it first.

I also wonder how many of the pigs even caught the reference.

Again, I said nor suggested no such thing. Please do not take my words out of context.

I'm pretty sure I didn't, but to be safe, perhaps you can give a little detail into what exactly you meant. The quote in question for ease of reference: "So, the building of this Wal-Mart is going to benefit low-income citizens ... by demolishing their affordable housing?"

Well I think it's a stupid quote and would argue that Target attracts a very similar audience to Wal-Mart.

There was an article posted previously that said Walmart's average customer earns $35k/year and Target's average customer makes $50k/year.

To me, this is clearly a class and race struggle, but those on the disgusting, offensive side of the struggle have been doing a pretty good job of maintaining the appearance of legitimacy by disguising it as being about traffic, property values and crime. As a student of nuance and of getting to the core of what drives human behavior, I can tell you almost invariably whenever the canards of property values and crime are brought up as reasons to oppose something, they're ALWAYS a guise for latent racism or classism.

I don't think a majority of people in the Heights are either of those things. There certainly is a hipster element in the area but it's down in Montrose too.

For the most part, people here are "normal".

Sorry. I should have been more clear. I was referring to the vocal opposition, not the majority of Heights residents.

Where'd Dallas get all those trees? Are those fake too?

It is your own personal opinion that if the ordinance can be interpreted in an unreasonable manner, it will be interpreted in an unreasonable manner because you believe that government is by its very nature unreasonable.

I can count the number of times Marksmu and I have agreed on something on one hand, but I totally agree with him on this. Without clearer language, the ordinance is ready to be abused by those in power. Dismissing Marksmu's concerns as irrelevant and as little more than a conspiracy theory won't do anything to win you friends, especially with people who feel the same as him. Demanding a better, more secure product from lawmakers shouldn't be considered unreasonable or ridiculous, and imposing this on people who bought land prior to this ordinance taking effect just seems wrong as well.

Everyone hates builders and realtors - we better make them the face of this. Why not just say George Bush is the one who is secretly supporting the opposition??? Its just as honest and you can probably get alot more people to sign the anti-George Bush Historic Preservation Ordinance petition.

Maybe if the W in George W Bush stands for Walmart.

The other thing I think is just ridiculous is the charge that people against the Wal-Mart are racists and don't like Latinos. That's as much of a stretch as Wal-Mart being put on this earth to stick it to the poor.

Well it's either hipster elitism or racism. Or a combination of both.

Neither of said anything of the sort.

Yeah, you did: "So, the building of this Wal-Mart is going to benefit low-income citizens ... by demolishing their affordable housing?"

Or maybe you were trying to prove Walmart is evil and not concerned about the poor by drawing an analogy of no relevance whatsoever? I mean, you know, since Walmart isn't building this new supercenter to benefit just the people who live in that one single apartment complex.

Edit: Unless you're suggesting this Walmart will be mobile and sentient, wandering around the innerloop devouring any low-income housing it comes across.

what about those that bought a house because it as in a neighborhood of bungalows. Thier rules are getting changed, too.

Gooch, this is where I disagree with you. The owners who bought bungalows bought knowing full well they owned in an area without the rules. Why can't the city grandfather an exemption for current owners? That seems to me the only fair compromise.

Is your view of the world the same as it was ten years ago? twenty? If not, you're suffering from the very malady you decry, m'lady. Find a toddler to set you straight, or better yet, a fetus.

Why oh why must old people delude themselves into thinking that a lifetime of experiences, education and thought count for something?

Wrong on two assumptions.

One, I'm no lady. I realize my nom de HAIF can probably be construed as the feminine form of Atticus, and in fact part of the inspiration for my name was based on Harper Lee's brilliant portrait of true American nobility, but it was also inspired by a successful prison riot. It's not feminine, it just looks that way.

Two, I am unchanging and immutable. I'm godlike in that way.

I almost got attacked by a poodle hybrid. Does that count?

The owner was cute, though.

Was it a cockapoo?

Granted, Meier's design is just as heavy handed as it's predecessor it is a conservative design by keeping the scale of it's predecessor. More importantly and to the point of all this, is that this is the architectural product from that era's outlook on lives. So in a way the critique of late Internationalism (like that of the Pennzoil towers or Meier's entire projects list) is not so much it's sterility but the image of distant power that strikes any casual observer or Ebert as alien in contrast to his non-ADA compliant churches rich in detailed ornamentation. People see the architecture of old world as it is expressed in the new world, or as tourists/voyers. It's an image or mental construct that has been tamed by an unending machine of economy to where things are today, style wise. So much that the image of "Rome in Houston" or "Houston in Rome" has become the common transaction of many new builds.

But that's not Ebert's lament. He's pissy because he sees the grandiose old next to the utilitarian new without thinking about context. In other words, he doesn't recognize old once had utilitarian buildings too, but that those have invariably spent time with the business end of a bulldozer. He's under the false impression the past was somehow better than the present. It's a malady that affects all older people. I think his problem is that he views his surroundings through the eyes of an old man, not that he views his surroundings through the eyes of a modern man.

However, I would not put it above recognition that Attica could theoretically live/work in an architecturally interesting home/office of timeless preservation representing not only the parlance of our era but also in his own terms it's "utility."

I'm much too spartan for that. My office and my home pretty much meet the definition of the word utility as it applies in modern day America.

There is plenty of money to be made with historic bungalows and plenty of peolpe willing to do it.

It will certainly make the neighborhood more exclusive. It's a good plan B if you fail to stop the Walmart construction.

anyone with a brain realizes those areas will turn quickly

Turn what exactly?

I went to an Aldine elementary school. And now, if I don't move in the next decade and a half, my kids will go to Bammel High School. I like my neighborhood a great deal, and I can't foresee moving unless my job takes me out of Houston. Then again, I gladly devote my evenings to my child (with another on the way), and I have never been convinced that subpar schools have subpar students. The teachers may not be the best, and the schools themselves may have difficulty competing with students' cultural misplacement of values - otherwise not supporting a strong need for education. But all these things can be fixed at home. In fact, that's where I think the biggest difference between average students and exemplary students can be found. I don't think it's a race issue, although I'm not blind to the statistical fact that minority races tend to value education less than affluent whites. Regardless, competing for the top 10% will be easier for my kids in Bammel than it would be in Klein, Katy or Memorial. And considering my kids are most likely to go to a public university, that 10% is all that really matters.

Plus, Houston is a multicultural city, and 1960 is a microcosm of that diversity. I like that my kids will grow up outside of a homogenized white enclave. It'll put them at a distinct advantage, with the accelerated social development they'll receive, over their whitebread raised peers. The world's a different place than it was even 20 years ago. Old social constructs that once defined American life no longer do. Comfortability within diverse groups will be a key factor for future success (that, being fluent in Spanish and having a solid understanding of math and science).

Yeah.... I don't have any AMEX black stories. Unless (I mean until) I hit the lottery, I probably won't either.

Very interesting, if true.

So, the building of this Wal-Mart is going to benefit low-income citizens ... by demolishing their affordable housing?

Yeah I have been thinking the same thing for a while. There is a big variance sign in front of the apartments. Good luck finding a couple hundred apartments in that area on the bus line and accross the street from the public health facility that is on heights at a similar rent.

It will be odd when they tear down affordable housing and build a panera bread / starbucks / nail salon and act as if that is somehow helping poor folks.

Weird. So you two thought the low prices were intended only to benefit low income residents of just this one apartment complex? That's weirder than the idea that this Walmart is being built to service just Heights residents.

Moving away from gas-powered vehicles will require some infrastructure adjustment, but we won't be tearing up the pavement anytime soon. How much depends on the power source(s) that emerge.

The big difference between rail and the auto, even if electric, is that rail is completely connected to the grid and is tied into the central power source. No matter what, autos cannot achieve the same connectivity, and will need some way to refuel. These considerations must be included as part of the cost in developing the non-gas automobile infrastructure. Sure, a substantial portion or the infrastructure already exists in the form of roads, but transitioning to an alternative fueled automobile won't be free.

I'm not so sure that building roads to get from point a to point b was such a myopic decision. What would the better alternative have been?

Streetcar suburbs, the way Heights and Montrose once were. That, and a punch to the mouth every time someone complained about how it was too hot to be outside. Humans are tropical animals. Houston's heat is our natural environment. People who don't want to sweat should live in Alaska (but not in the summer - sometimes it gets hot there).

I'd like to see some backup on your disregard for time efficiency. I think we are taking about more than saving a few minutes, especially when taken in the aggregate. And, my point all along has been that the personal vehicle, regardless of energy source is far more efficient than public transport when all trips are taken into account. Would solar powered cars be sufficiently ecologically and economically sound for you? That would take the whole sustainability issue out of the picture.

Individually manufactured solar panels for automobiles, which will likely continue to have an effective life of no more than five to six years, will be far too costly as to be economically sound. So no, that doesn't work. Basically, with autos, we have the promise that one day technology will improve to meet our current demand for environmental responsibility. So, we'll wait till that promised future date to make any necessary changes to the way we do business. Meanwhile, our fuel supplies dwindle and costs skyrocket and we continue to dump massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. No thanks. Electric rail technology exists now, and it'll be a lot cheaper and much more efficient to make improvements to the power source that runs that as technology permits.

I'm curious, how do you imagine things would work if we were to get rid of the parking lots you cited? Not just for kylejack but for everyone?

We'd adapt.

Humans are much better at that than some people will give us credit for.

Our infrastructure is only partially built to support gasoline powered automobiles. The much decried sprawling road network that allows us to reach almost all destinations (including easement access, thank you Niche) is just as usable by non-fossil fuel burning cars as it is by fossil fuel powered ones. Regardless of the power source, the time efficiency overall is much greater for the private vehicle than it is for public transport.

With gas-powered automobiles, more goes into infrastructure than just the development of pavement. No matter what, moving away from gas-powered automobiles will require significant infrastructure investment.

And my point is rather than continue to build crap on top of crap to fix the problems our myopic ancestors foisted upon us, let's rebuild with something altogether better.

As for your argument to time efficiency, I disregard it altogether. The savings of a handful of minutes to an individual is secondary to a long-term solution to provide ecologically and economically sound mass-mobility.

What I suspect you're getting at is that gasoline-powered engines are inefficient. I'd have to look that up but, just for arguments sake, I'll accept that as a fact and then dismiss it as irrelevant since cars don't have to be gasoline powered. What isn't irrelevant is that some sort of personal, private transportation vehicle is by far the most time efficient when all trips are taken into account.

It's not irrelevant. Our infrastructure is built to support gasoline powered automobiles. Moving away from gasoline to another combustible fuel, or even away from the internal combustion engine altogether, would require a substantial investment in new infrastructure development.

Walmart is more environmentally conscious than many other retailers:

But as Hollender explains, the Walmart of today is hardly recognizable compared to the Walmart of, say, 2006. "Our conclusion is that they are doing more than most. When we see a potential partner exhibit the amount of change that they've exhibited over the past three years or so, it warrants you to reevaluate your position."

link