AtticaFlinch

Anyway, just thought I'd point out again that not every Heights resident is opposed to this, and in fact, most are unopposed. I'll return the next time this misconception is posted. Until then, toodles.

Thanks for reminding me. I amend my previous post here to reflect that anywhere the phrase "Heights residents" can be found should be prefaced with the qualifier "some".

What is it about WalMart that motivates some people to be so derisive and divisive?

Paternalism, or maybe some oddball notion of a Heights manifest destiny.

It's all so Holier-Than-Thou to think the arguments against Walmart are all about "appearing affluent" or that anyone against it is being disingenuous. Perhaps it's even more plausible that people who support it are doing so only to be contrarian.

You think we all secretly agree with you, but are just arguing for argument's sake? I know you've got a really high opinion of the right and moral position on which you've chosen to make your stand, but really, not everyone sees Walmart as being evil and malevolent, or as in my case think Walmert is no more evil and malevolent than any other corporation.

Many people in the Heights just plain ARE affluent. Apparently this is some grave sin in the forum.

Having money isn't a grave sin. Acting douchey to others who don't share in your bounty is though. Fine, you've got a lot of money. You don't want to shop at Walmart. Good, no one cares. Neither Central Market, Costco nor Whole Foods is far from you. We already know you won't shop at the Walmart, so no harm no foul for you at all whatsoever. However, there are people who will shop there, and frankly their quality of life concerns vastly outweigh any Heights pretensions.

Oh, and I really don't know how many times this has to be said, but in yet another attempt to clarify this point, I will repeat it yet again. This Walmart is not only for Heights residents. The Yale Street plot is a strategic location to draw as many people as possible from the entirety of the inner-loop. The people of the Heights cannot for some reason seem to grasp this point, and they seem to continually lose sight of the fact they share the rest of the inner loop with people of various means. And speaking for what's best for those of lesser means based on your emotions and not reason reeks of paternalism and doucheyness.

In the spirit of stirring the pot, I'd like to make a few broad generalizations, and see how the argument plays out:

Earlier someone said that the median income of a 'typical' Walmart shopper was in the $35,000 range. Let's say that's accurate (even if it's $50,000, I don't think it will change my point). Based on home values in and around The Heights area, Washington, etc., I think it's a fair assumption that most folks in the $35,000/year income range do not own homes in the Heights, Washington area. I think a broader generalization would be that many of these folks probably rent their homes.

Since they don't own homes in the area, they don't pay property taxes in the area.

The folks who do own homes in the area, do pay property taxes.

By that logic, the folks paying for the roadway improvements, utility upgrades, etc to the Walmart property aren't the ones who will *primarily* be shopping at Walmart.

Broad generalization? Yes. Possibly accurate? Maybe.

Discuss....

No, everybody pays property taxes. Landlords don't gift their civic obligations to their lessees. The taxes are subsumed by the monthly lease cost. Also, considering all Houston property taxes are paid for by all Houstonians and not just Heights residents, and those dollars are then doled out where they're needed throughout the entire city, no one neighborhood and no one resident has any more say than another. Ultimately, if you paid the property taxes on the one piece of property in question, then you could decide what would go there. Otherwise, unless you're willing to outbid Walmart, you have no say.

I am not imposing my version of morality on the community. I am organizing with people who share my view of morality to bring about change through the government leaders we elected. That is how we got civil rights, child labor laws, and consumer protections. If you disagree with my morals, you can contact your elected officials and tell them that you want your tax dollars to support Wal-Mart. But, you cannot tell me that I have no right to do the opposite.

Are you seriously mythologizing your opposition to an inner-loop Walmart near the Heights as somehow being on par with civil rights, child labor and consumer protection progress? It's no wonder it's been impossible to reason with you. Yours is a quest worthy of Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr combined. Keep fighting then, brave soldier. God speed.

Arguably, renters pay taxes indirectly. But the landlord is the one who is on the hook for the taxes. Otherwise, this is accurate. But, in Houston, so many neighborhoods have been ruined by lack of planning, that when, as Ayn Rand would put it, "productive" people are seen as having the ability to influence development in their neighborhood, the, again, Ayn Rand's words, "unproductive" people resent the idea that the "productive" people have a voice when "unproductive" people don't. Thus, people cast scorn on the Stop Ashby Highrise people because they were largely a group of very wealthy and influential people who were able to throw enough sand in the gears to get the development modified and probably defeated (although the developers say they will still build). Likewise, people see the Heights residents as having some unfair advantage because they are better off than those who want to shop at Wal-Mart. But, your conclusion is spot on. The Heights and Westend residents should not have to fund (directly or indirectly) and bear the burden of a Wal-Mart that they do not want.

It's weird you'd reference Ayn Rand to support your thesis that the government should interfere with a business' ability to do business. Very weird indeed.

This is amazing news, I have always thought of anything called a "parkway" as a magical, exciting, stylish surface to drive on.

We can only dream that once the parkway name is official, Krystal will take note and start building more locations there.

I'd suggest Krystal should also build near the new Walmart on Yale, but I suspect it wouldn't be very welcome there. A White Castle would be welcome, but only because a hip, multi-racial comedy featuring Doogie Howser was made about it. Maybe we could rename Yale to Oak-Cedar-Elm-Wooded-Tree Parkway and bring some of that suburban magic to the inner city.

I think we're on to something, folks.

This rationale is tired.

I'm sure he's tired of saying it. Many of us are tired of saying it.

It's tiring to justify the word affluence, especially as to how the meaning changes along with the context. Walmart's corporate affluence isn't the same thing as a Heights resident's desire to appear affluent.

Here's an idea, rename it Highway 6.

But what do you think about Krystal?

How? Highway 6 joins 290 at that Highway 6/FM1960 and 290 intersection. Then, Highway 6 splits off from 290 just after Hempstead and goes off through College Station, etc.

But what do you think about Krystal?

I understand the topic is renaming 1960. A frivolous endeavor. And, you guys were having fun making fun.

I only speak from my own experience, after many conversations with friends, neighbors and strangers in the grocery store. Nobody I know objects to low income housing in the school attendance zone. The last low income housing proposal close to us , the land was owned by a guy in Huntwick and the apartments would have been his immediate neighbor. It was withdrawn, not rejected. Our problem comes with the schools.

How many low income students can reasonably be absorbed by a school at a time? How many are too many? Forest went from 10% to 60% in less than 10 years. How does that affect curriculum? Teachers? Band? Low income does not equal dumb. Low income does make things different for teachers. Having to raise every cent of money to take the 1 act to regions is going to limit what a teacher can do. What if they win and go to state? Many of these kids are working to help the family. They cannot afford the extra $500.00 a year for band trips. So much for band. Forget about parent groups raising money. The parents are at work. How much is too much?

Yes, this current dust up is about renaming 1960. We are having this discussion because the people who are against the taxing authority started a pissing match so you guys could all join in and they could go to Ms. Riddle with further proof that nobody supports anything.

The 16 signers of the objectionable letter were folks who have spent a lifetime in this community helping to make it better for everybody.

The Woodlands and Kingwood are MPC. Conroe has zoning. Spring is a disenfranchised no mans land just like the rest of us. One of the reasons we moved here was the trees. If I wanted to live in a rice field I'd move to Katy.

But what do you think about Krystal?

Does nobody have an opinion about Krystal but me?

I'm talking about the Krystal on 1960. It's the only Krystal in the entire Houston area. It's on 1960.

1960.

My friends do not attribute the poor architecture in Houston to me just because I live here. They would never say, "What the hell is that 'thing' on top of yall's Embassy Suites?" Instead, they would say, "What the hell is that 'thing' you are wearing, Red?" My friends are like that. They attribute to me those things that I control, and attribute to others those things that others control.

Your friends are wierd.

I've been meaning to tell you, Red, I like "Margaritaville" as much as the next guy, but that shirt is frankly appalling.

I tend to agree with you, PorTENT. That photo is taken from this very website. It even says so on the bottom of the photo.

I have to hand it to Dallas and the Perot family on this one. If the building comes out looking anything like the renderings, it will be pretty awesome.

I agree. Most of my HAIF-based hate for Dallas is contrived for the internet. I actually like Dallas, and I think this building will be a great addition to the city. I look forward to visiting this museum.

I'm not sure that you speak for your neighbors on the affordable housing thing. Every time that there's a new Tax Credit project proposed out in that direction, we re-hash affordable housing on HAIF. It doesn't seem to happen quite so much when it's in Houston or Katy or Baytown or League City. Nope, mostly just 'The Great Northwest'.

To be fair, while the affordability of the housing isn't mentioned, if any of that housing is an apartment complex then you can expect some knickers to get twisted... except for maybe in Baytown.

And we do have the occasional person come on here to complain about a few acres of trees that are getting plowed under for a strip center. Again, that's unique to 'The Great Northwest'. That kind of outrage doesn't occur in The Woodlands or Conroe or Kingwood or Spring.

I consider my little portion of 1960 to be in Spring, not the Great Northwest. 1960 is a really, really long road. Also, people from Conroe don't complain because computer technology hasn't yet reached that part of the world. And people from Kingwood and the Woodlands don't complain about a loss of trees because their development requirements ensure a thin veneer of rurality to hide each new construction. Even though most of the forests have been torn down, from the leather-clad, climate-controlled confines of an H2 it still likes like a forest.

But yeah, how does all this have anything to do with the name change?

So few HAIF subjects are about 1960, so we 'burb folks have got to take the opportunity to share our opinion about all remotely relevant topics at one time. In that same vein, when I lived in Memphis, despite the ubiquity of the place, I only ever ate at a Krystal Burger once or twice as I found their entire premise to be stupid. Now that I'm on 1960, and the only Krystal Burger in Houston is rather close to my house, despite my previous conceits I find myself eating at Krystal all the time. Did I mention that the Krystal is on 1960? If not, Krystal is on 1960... so it's sorta kinda relevant to the discussion at hand.

This is the incredible shrinking thread.

Bud Light at a Tejano or "Urban" club on 1960

(341 ml longneck * 4.2% abv = 14.3 ml of alcohol)

($2.00 / 14.3 ml = $0.14 per ml of alcohol)

~~compares with~~

MacAllan 12-year at home

(1,750 ml * 40.0% abv = 700 ml of alcohol)

($93.67 / 700 ml = $0.13 per ml of alcohol)

~~plus~~

I thought I was supposed to fear apartment complexes. Suburban life is so confusing.

Well sure...I just hope you speak Spanish and like polka-based music.

Oomph-ah, oomph-ah, oomph-ah.. Ah-hoy-hoy-hoy!!!

I do when I'm in a tejano bar. Actually, I'd love to see more classic-styled R&B/blues joints and jazz joints (playing real jazz) pop up. And as much as I love to hate Austin, I wouldn't mind getting more of the whole Central Texas sound through town on a more regular basis. Unfortunately, the new bars would probably be stocked with the hackneyed Creed-emulating posers instead.

But still, cheap drinks.

Point taken.

Still, individuals don't have to be "All in" or "All out" on issues. It sounds as if MarkSMU was using one person's stance on one issue to belittle their opinion on another. To believe that everyone has to fall only in to one camp at all times seems short sighted and even a misunderstanding of the complexity of the human condition (There. I have satisfactorily added my own hyperbole to the thread).

I agree this is a complex and multifaceted issue, and if I'm not mistaken, I think that was also Marksmu's larger point. By questioning people's visceral emotional responses and highlighting their incongruities in logic, Marksmu appears to have underlined the fact most people weren't rightfully acknowledging just how complex the issue is.

I think his analogy made plenty of sense. Then again, I wholly support the construction of the Walmart even though I hate Walmart. (How's that for complex?)

As far as the Cypress Creek Parkway designation, my understanding is that this will be something of a vanity name change; no maps, street names, postal routes or other such designators will be altered or revised. People/businesses are free to use the name at their discretion...

This begs the question of why even bother? The entire enterprise is beyond pointless.

Clubs mostly just fail to the extent that they're in areas with rising rents (because that's the vast majority of their overhead) or because there's illicit enterprising going on in them to the extent that the TABC could yank their license. And even if the club were marginal, a property owner is going to prefer that to having his buildings condemned and demolished at his expense.

1960 has had clubs in the past, and except for a one or two, they're all gone now. Regardless of the property owners' desires, these clubs will still need to turn a profit in order to keep their doors open. If the 1960 market is already maxed out with clubs, new ones won't stay open long. I did recommend the 25% be based on a rolling average, so while I suppose there's a way to game the system, it'll be expensive for the club/property owner to manage it. On the bright side, with the opening of so many new clubs, it would be possible for Houston's music scene to expand dramatically. Also, with so much competition, drink prices will hit rock bottom. Cheap drinks, live music and an otherwise nicer looking street scene makes my idea a win/win/win situation.

I'm within a 5 minutes to 2 Wal Marts. Rev. Billy says we should just stop shopping. That what I'm doing. Trashy shopping centers will not get any of my money.

Rev. Billy? I heard he told some people to jump off a cliff. I wonder if they did.

The Walmart comment was a joke. I wasn't trying to start another anti-Walmart tirade parade on this thread.

Something else is in play here. Many of those places have been here since Nixon resigned. Empty and trashy looking. Their owners are in another country. The folks who want 1960 renamed are trying to create some kind of community, and I say God Bless Them. Ask anybody you meet out here if they intend to stay here and the reply is no. They are here to work and when they retire, they will go elsewhere. The turnover in subdivisions used to be between 5 and 10% a year. Now with everyone cutting back, not so much. It is hard to have community and stability when everyone is gonna be gone in a few years. There is no sense of ownership. We all want stable, crime free places to lived, but not badly enough to make that happen. The 16 community leaders who signed the letter get it. Some of the people interviewed on TV don't, and, they work in ugly strip shopping centers.

I think that's the crux of the issue. Either that, or we don't know how to actuate positive change, and in our impotence, we wash our hands of the whole thing.

Or we change the street name hoping public perception is swayed not by actual visual stimuli but by mere suggestion alone. We can call the road 1960, Cypress Creek Parkway or Rev Billy Superhighway, and it doesn't make a difference to the ugly physical reality that is the strip mall graveyard we currently call FM 1960. Unless this situation is rectified, no amount of cutsie, wistfully suburban rebrands will do a damned thing.

Yeah, besides which, that opens the door to a lot of unintended consequences. If I were in the position of one of those property owners, I'd just open up a large enough nightclub to meet the vacancy minimums. Nightclubs are wonderful for that; they require relatively little capital investment, mostly just a wide open space. And I wouldn't bother trying to make it seem nice, either.

Yeah, but once a place like that fails, then either the property owner would have to refill the space, or allow it to sit idle. 0% occupancy is still lower than 25%. If it sits idle too long, it'll go the way of the dodo. Either way, re-leasing it or leaving it idle to then be demolished, would be better for the area than the current program of nothing.

Either that, or I'd just lower the rents until the spaces got filled. And you don't want anybody in your neighborhood that rents retail space for $0.30 per square foot per month.

I feel the markets would ultimately sort this out. Only so many businesses can be sustained in any community, regardless of the cost of rent. And, it's not as if 1960 isn't already teeming with unsavory businesses. We do, afterall, already have a Walmart.

That's pretty and all, but where's the image of the people who'll actually be in the park?

Like this guy:

It's a nice fantasy but not practical at all.

I realize this. Enforcing corporate responsibility is never popular and rarely welcome. I don't see my solution as practical from a legal nor an economic perspective, but I also don't see any other way to quickly change the face of 1960 otherwise. Mine is a pie-in-the-sky dream; I'm under no illusions of its practicality. That said, it's a better solution than changing the name of the strip to something bucolic like Cypress Creek Parkway. That's not even a band-aid solution. That's a non-solution which may be as equally costly to business owners as my own solution.

The only people who stand to benefit from the name change are likely sign shops and print shops. It still leaves the residents, the property owners and the business owners in a bad place. Annnnd, surely to the ire of conservatives everywhere, our tax dollars will be frivilously spent changing all the street signage - whereas my solution leaves the owners of derelict property on the hook for costs. If they can't abide by the requisite changes, Harris County has weekly land auctions.

As for mine being an onerous and draconian solution, I'd grant business owners a five year rolling average to achieve 25% occupancy. They can accomplish this in various ways, all of which would benefit the entire community. Either they could lower rents (encouraging more businesses to fill empty spots), improve the property (making the spots more aesthetically pleasing and functional) or increase connectivity between strip centers (easing traffic on the "Parkway" and making the property more attractive to prospective lessees). It forces developers and property owners to give a crap about what they've built after it was built. The only downside I see (aside from the onerous and draconian nature of it) is that it will most likely also limit speculative new construction going into the future - which, considering many people seem to hate strip malls and everything they stand for, may not be such a bad thing.

It's may not be entirely practical from a limited perspective, but it is a pragmatic solution to the core problem.

Seriously, though, 1960 has become a kind of boundary between affluent households to the north in "Cypress" and the encroachment of brown people from the unnamed abyss that is Houston's not-particularly-affluent ETJ. To drive along it is an increasingly unpleasant experience, and I don't think that it's a good idea to brand 1960 in any way shape or form that diminishes or dilutes the "Cypress" brand.

Now that I've got some skin in this game and live off this road, I've noticed the problem isn't simply boundaries and economics. The poor live alongside the affluent everywhere more successfully than what you're crediting to 1960. The problem here is all the derelict structures alongside the road. 1960 is a stripmall ghost town. I think a simple solution would be to eliminate a number of the empty buildings at owner's expense. I'd like the county to require a minimum of 25% occupied capacity based on square footage on a five year rolling cycle. If a property can't maintain that capacity, then the owner should be required by law to bulldoze the structure and plant some pines in its place. Leaving the number at 25% is fair to the owners, but forcing the bulldozing would make land owners and developers more cautious and certain of success (as much as is possible) prior to construction. Plus, this law would virtually require the proper cycling of old, worn-out structures with newer and better construction.

Then again, who cares?

Yeah but this isn't even complete infill. This only infilled about half of a small block, there's still going to be surface parking on this lot.

You're right. It certainly would have been better to leave the entire lot a parking lot. All or nothing, I say. It's the internet way.

I simply do not believe the bike trail will be adequately considered.

On what do you base this presumption? Walmart has no construction within the inner loop on which to determine precedent. Your presumption is based purely on emotional conceit and contains zero facts.

As for the lights, I still don't get it. How is this different than any other thru street connecting Heights to Washington across I-10? Besides (and again), your argument with regards to traffic is against development in general, not against Walmart. Any development on the lot in question will affect traffic, whether it's a Walmart, an HEB or some mixed-use pseudo-urban mid-rise housing development with ground floor retail. It really doesn't matter what it is. You should just be grateful the developers and Walmart are on the hook for most of the costs of infrastructure upgrades. If Yale, which is a cruddy, pothole-filled stretch of pavement, will be redone with no costs further than tax abatements to the Houston resident, then good for us and good for Walmart. It already sounds like they're acting like more than responsible neighbors.

And while I've never used it, I'm almost certain there's a dedicated bike trail just for people like you who wish to cross I-10 without risking their lives. Isn't it over by Studemont? I'm certain there's a thread about it somewhere on HAIF. (Edit: Nevermind, 20th filled in the gaps here.)

Zoos sort of creep me out. The premise behind Planet of the Apes really messed with me as a child, and to this day, the idea of primates in captivity gives me the heeby jeebies.

That was probably lice.

Are you the owner? Are you the one that takes the financial and emotional hit if the concept fails? Maybe the market will figure out whether the dress code and concept is unreasonable? Looks like a lot of people go there on a regular basis, (I'm not one of them) so guess it's working out so far.

You don't have to be the owner of a place to criticize it, especially in a country with free speech like this one. Your "it's popular therefore it's reasonable" is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

Argumentum ad gym shorts respectability:

Thanks for the morning laugh, gto.

What about those tiny tabletop tripods? Has anyone had any experience with one of these?

These are clearly meant for hobbiests and people who just want a steadier shot. I take one of these things with me whenever I take a trip. I get much better photos with it.

Traffic is better because there are not Wal Marts with half a dozen red lights at every interstate exit. Developments like this will bring the suburban traffic congestion to an area that currently doesn't have it.

I'm not quite certain how you arrived at the number of six traffic light for EACH exit. Regardless, you have to encounter a traffic light to get from one side of 10 to the other now anyhow. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how adding a Walmart will affect your life any more than any other development... most especially with traffic. Just take one of the numerous alternative routes available to you if traffic gets out of control.