s3mh

You are right. Wal-Mart does do very detailed studies of the markets it invades. And they know that the store on 45 and Crosstimbers will serve residents living north of 20th. They also know that the market that is south of 20th is very different from the market that is north of 20th (spare me the allegations of classism/elitism; these are indisputable demographics that I did not make up). The market south of 20th is not nearly as likely to shop at Wal-Mart and is also more likely to shop at Target or other smaller retailers and grocers. The people running Wal-Mart are very aware of these demographics. Thus, why would Wal-Mart want to drop a supercenter in an area that is not in their usual wheelhouse (i.e. lower to middle income suburbia)? Or, more pointedly, where was Wal-Mart when people were marketing the property that is now home to the Sawyer Heights Target? The answer is that Wal-Mart didn't give a crap about the inner-loop until its competitor, Target, started making money there. As Wal-Mart and many other companies have done many times over, they want the Yale location not because it will be profitable, but because it will reduce the profitability of their competitor's store. If you take away Target's profits, you weaken Target's ability to compete in terms of cost and market share (i.e. expanding locations). It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out. Thus, the point, again, is that the burden of the Yale location far outweighs its benefits because it will be largely duplicative of the Crosstimbers location for those who want to shop at Wal-Mart. So, there is no justification for handing out piles of variances and tax dollars to help Wal-Mart establish a store that is not needed by the community (because of the Crosstimbers location) and is really just a corporate power play on the part of Wal-Mart against its rival Target. If there were no plans to build at Crosstimbers, it would be a closer argument for or against. The Crosstimbers location makes it clear that there is just no reason to have the Yale location, especially given how poorly it fits in with the community.

There will be plenty of government intervention on behalf of Wal-Mart (feeder road, piles of variances needed, increased demand on water, sewer, electrical grid, police and fire). All of that will cost tax dollars. Tax payers have every right to have a say on land use issues. We live in a democracy, not a plutocracy. I just saw on the Free Press website that Wal-Mart is also planning a store at I-45 and Crosstimbers. That would mean that people living from about 20th st. northward in the Heights will either be closer to that location or have better highway access by either just hopping on 45 or 610-45 rather than rolling along at 35 mph through the Heights. For those south of 20th, we are talking about a difference of a mile or two between the two locations. Thus, this whole argument about depriving low income people of a convenient Wal-Mart location is simply crocodile tears. The benefits of having the Wal-Mart at Yale and I-10 are virtually non-existent if there is also going to be a location at 45 and Crosstimbers. This is just about Wal-Mart using its corporate largesse to cram an unwanted, unneeded store down our throats so they can take a shot at Target's market share. I would bet that the revenues for a Yale store would not come close to stores in the burbs. I would also bet that in less than 10 years, Wal-Mart would dump the location, as they have done in many other powerplays when the competitive justification for the store was lost.

A. It certainly is an ad hominem attack now. I have lived paycheck to paycheck, lived on unemployment, and have earned less than the poverty level. When I needed to stretch my dollars, I stayed away from Wal-Mart. The local grocery specials always beat the pants off of Wal-Mart's prices. And close-out stores had much better clothing and housewares than Wal-Mart for the same or less than what Wal-Mart charged for their junk. Now that I make enough money to afford to live in the Heights (in a very small bungalow), I have the right to protect my property values and preserve the unique character of my neighborhood. Wal-Mart threatens that not because of its customer's ethnicity or economic demographic. Wal-Mart threatens the character of the Heights because the Heights is one of the few communities left in this City that doesn't follow the model of unwalkable neighborhoods with strip centers and big box stores. B. It could be said with equal force of logic that your translation of every argument into a class/race issue is nothing more than your own resentment of those who are successful. The economic fortunes of the economic and racial demographic you champion are directly tied to the ability of Houston to attract businesses to the downtown area. The availablity and quality of inner city neighborhoods for professionals has always been a sore spot when comparing Houston to other cities. The emergence of the Heights, Rice Military and other inner city neighborhoods has done a lot to improve Houston's ability to compete for business investment. Drop a Wal-Mart right in the middle of that and you have now taken a big step backwards. Sure, short term, there will be construction jobs, a few hundred low wage jobs and some cheaper goods for people in the inner loop. In the long run, Houston will lose business to other metropolitan areas because of our inability to wisely control development. In short, Houston can only grow so long as a city where we all just grin and bear it. C. The food reference is just a demonstration that you can make a fact based argument that something is bad for lower income people without being in the same income bracket. D. The bottom line to your argument is that Wal-Mart is terrible, but we all have to shut up and deal with it because Wal-Mart (allegedly) saves lower income people a few bucks (or, more specifically, a few minutes in the car). The truth is that the idea of community resistance to Wal-Mart being some sort of class/ethnic elitism or "tyranny" is nothing more than Wal-Mart PR flack. This is a battle between wealthy investors, Wal-Mart execs and shareholders and the people who live in the neighborhood, pay plenty of taxes and want to see development in Houston that is beneficial to all and not just a quick buck for developers and a chance for Wal-Mart execs to take a shot at Target's revenues.

1. HEB was interested in the property but was apparently outbid by Wal-Mart. This isn't a question of Wal-Mart or nothing. 2. I would take HEB over Wal-Mart every day. I have personally seen HEB write six and seven figure checks to support local events. Can't say the same about Wal-Mart. 3. There is absolutely no hypocrisy involved when someone makes a valid argument on behalf of those who are in a lower income bracket than they are. You do not have to make minimum wage to validly argue that US agriculture policy makes healthy foods (fruits and vegatables) more expensive than fatty, highly processed foods, which is currently causing an obesity epidemic in lower income communities in this country. The sole purpose of bringing up income is to claim that the people that earn a decent living are incapable of seeing beyond their own self interest. That is a character attack, not a valid argument. 4. Plenty of anti-Wal-Mart perspectives on here as well.

If the only purpose of an inner-loop Wal-Mart is to cut drive time for existing Wal-Mart customers, then Wal-Mart would have no interest in pursuing the inner-loop location. Wal-Mart could care less about how much time people spend in the car to get to their store. Wal-Mart is looking to get new customers that are not going up to I-45 or 290. That is not an assumption. That is a business reality. The only reason to invest in a new location is to expand marketshare, not to cut in on existing clientele at other locations to altruistically make shopping more convenient for customers. In reality, I think Wal-Mart is going back to its bad idea of trying to upscale its stores to expand their market share into urban areas. This idea has already flopped. But, I think they believe that Houstonians are much more urban sprawl tolerant than people in other cities. Finally, personal income level has nothing to do with who knows whether an inner-loop Wal-Mart would be good or bad for anyone inside loop. That is just an ad hominem attack that ignores the merits of the arguments. And don't forget that the developers of the site are probably inner-loopers who make many times what any of us make.

There is a lot of very near-sighted logic about Wal-Mart being a blessing to lower income residents of the inner loop. There has also been very little said about the effect Wal-Mart will have on local and regional inner loop businesses, except for ones that probably will keep their higher income clientele (C & D Hardware, little shops in the Heights). Wal-Mart will definitely attract business from low-income inner-loop residents. These consumers will not come out of thin air. They will be taken from other businesses. A large number will be taken from the many local and regional Hispanic groceries (La Michoacana, for example) and panaderia, and, most notably, the farmer’s markets on Airline (Canino’s et al). There is no doubt that these local and regional businesses will suffer greatly with Wal-Mart in the loop and may not survive. The result will be that people who could once walk or take a short bus ride to their local market will now have to go all the way down to Wal-Mart. The other result will mean that the scant economic development in the lower income inner-loop neighborhoods will die out. Once the grocery/meat/bakery stores leave, others will struggle with less foot traffic in their strip malls. This effect on small towns has been well documented. The net result is that the money that would normally stay in the community will end up going to Wal-Mart shareholders. Lower income residents of the inner loop have done just fine without Wal-Mart for decades. Putting Wal-Mart in the middle of quickly gentrifying neighborhoods makes no sense. Wal-Mart will probably end up like Auchan and many other failed mega stores. Wal-Mart’s main profit center is suburban families who are on a budget, not the urban poor. Wal-Mart cannot survive on inner city lower income residents. This city is scarred with too many cheaply built big box developments that have gone bad. Economic development inside the loop will not benefit long term from ill fitting suburban style development. The reason areas like Rice Military, Washington Ave, the Heights and Upper Kirby have thrived is because they are not like Kingwood, Pearland or Spring. These are inner city neighborhoods with a completely different character. Wal-Mart will not only threaten the development of these areas, it will also destroy the struggling businesses in the lower income areas. So, sure. Some people will save money on toilet paper. But the net effect will be very negative for everyone else.

I do not understand how this makes business sense to WalMart. People who live in the Heights, Rice Military, Garden Oaks, River Oaks and Upper Kirby are not going to be regular WalMart shoppers. WalMart is not going to beat out Kroger and Whole Foods for grocery store customers. And when given a choice between WalMart and Target, innerloopers will chose Target 9 out of 10 times. I thought WalMart's attempts at upscaling were seen as a failure. So, why put a superstore down the street from a historic neighborhood, parallel to a street where people are paying $12 for cocktails, a mile away from a nice Kroger and a future Whole Foods, and miles away from WalMart's bread and butter? Just think of what people would post if Max's Wine Dive announced that they were opening a new location in Pasadena.