s3mh

At least she knows how to spell the word.

Opposing viewpoints and debate are the only things that keep HAIF interesting. It's why people like Red, Crunch, and myself are here. And there isn't enough conflict, frankly. HAIF has gotten boring for lack of it.

I understand that you're frustrated. You've laid out all the talking points that some propagandistic website told you to, each of which has been countered logically, and you find yourself at a loss. ...and so you've begun to whine. I thank you for the entertainment associated with your humiliating defeat. It makes me feel better about myself. Goodnight.

You brought up the fact that I am new to this board in order to belittle my viewpoints. I just made light of your ad hominem attack. And I can understand how HAIF would get boring when it is dominated by a small cadre of ultra-pro development people who can't stand it when someone challenges them.

And I have not been defeated. The fight against Wal-Mart is just beginning. The West End civic club had a meeting with representatives of the developer (Ainbinder) and the local and state officeholders last night. At that meeting it was very clear that the developer understood that a single monster suburban Wal-Mart would be a major problem for residents in the area. Both the representatives from city council and the developer said that they did not want to shoehorn a suburban Wal-Mart in the middle of the West End/Heights/Washington corridor. So, while you were congratulating yourself at slaying internet windmills, the Wal-Mart opposition has been making major strides in having their legitmate concerns heard and addressed. Word from the developer was that no deal on the development has been made with Wal-Mart yet. My bet is that Wal-Mart will balk at having something other than their usual big box and walk away from the deal. They won't want to pay a premium for the cost of environmental mitigation and aesthetic upgrading from their usual ugly boxes and won't want to compromise on size. So, while you were arguing that it would be a savage injustice to require people to drive an extra 5-8 minutes to go to Crosstimbers instead of Yale to visit Wal-Mart, the Wal-Mart resistance has already taken real action to stop the development.

And pointing out spelling errors on a message board is just tacky.

Kidding? I think not. You make it from where? My office with 2,000 other warm shopping bodies at Heights and Allen Parkway? The round trip drive time from my office to Sawyer Heights is 15 minutes with no train, and in 30 minutes I hit BOTH Target and Petsmart. I know this because I do it about once a month, as do countless others from my building. In fact, Target is commonly referred to as the 'The Caf' because the joke is more people go there at lunch than eat in the crappy cafeteria on campus. And many of those people will go to WalMart instead (or at least put it in the rotation) because it will be that much closer. lol, you clearly have a lot to learn about the lunch-hour powershopper.

Judging by your member data, I presume you joined HAIF expressly to spread the good NIMBY word. Why not humor us, and try to come to the table with some pertinent data, or at the very least, believable anecdotal stories. You still never cleared up exactly what Wal-mart's southern demnographic boundary is after your lecture on the 20th street Maginot Line. And I'm still waiting for you take another stab at your bizarre assertion that Wal-Mart will force out Canino's, despite the fact the 20 years of grocery store growth in the area hasn't already done so. Tick Tock.

You clearly have much to learn about market cannabilization. Wal-Mart isn't going to spend piles of cash to compete with itself. People who will shop Wal-Mart during lunch from their work downtown are the same people who would shop at suburban locations at night or on the weekend. Wal-Mart has no altruistic motives. And the point regarding the shopping time is that those customers are in a hurry and not likely to fill a shopping cart to the rim with product. Why pile all that traffic into the Heights, when people working downtown can just go up Travis to I-45 and be at Crosstimbers in the same time (more likely less as getting through Heights/I-10 and Waugh/Washington intersections will be a nightmare)?

Wal-Mart will wipe Canino's, Michoacana and even Fiesta off the map the same way they have cleaned out town squares across America. They will come into the neighborhood, undercut competitors (predatory pricing is Wal-Mart's specialty) and then bring prices back up when the competition has folded.

The reference to 20th street is pretty obvious to anyone who actually lives in this city. You haven't provided any data to support your notion that the residents of River Oaks, Tangelwood, Upper Kirby, Rice Military and the Heights will give up on Sur La Table and Williams Sonoma in favor of Wal-Mart's Mainstay aluminum cookware. So, I do not feel any obligation to provide my own.

The Heights/West End area has undergone a tremendous tranformation over the past fifteen years. Washington Ave used to be an economic wasteland. Now, restaurants and shops are flocking to new developments on the street. Drop a Wal-Mart in the middle of that, and all bets are off. The need to have Wal-Mart's cheap goods a few minutes closer than the Crosstimbers location does not outweigh the need to have thriving inner city neighborhoods that attract businesses to downtown Houston. I have hosted many visitors, both business and family, in Houston. People are always very impressed by the development that is going on inside the loop. People's impression of our abundance of big box stores outside the loop is, well, not so favorable.

Finally, I apologize for joining HAIF to dare to express my views on this issue with those who have been posting for much longer than I have. I assumed people on this board would welcome opposing viewpoints and debate. But it looks like this is just another message board where conservatives try to shout down anyone who dares to oppose big business.

My position is that your position sucks. Defend it (if able).

20th Street may be an appropriate boundary to the north, but what are the boundaries to the east, south, and west? Who lives within this polygon? Could it be...buttloads of Wal-Mart shoppers?

This would be my reckoning: even the trendier inner loop neighborhoods are heterogeneous--the average household for a neighborhood hardly defines it--but throw in much of the Near Northside, 5th Ward, the East End all the way to Gulfgate, 3rd Ward, South Union, and the area right around Northwest Mall...AND take into account the hundreds of thousands of low- and middle-income daytime populations that inhabit office towers, retail centers, industrial complexes, and universities.

Then consider that out of the higher- and middle-income residents of the area, they do have plenty of discretionary income, and that means that out of the smaller percentage of people from that group that do shop at this Wal-Mart, they will tend to purchase products with higher markups and won't be so finicky about seeking out a hard bargain. Wal-Mart may not cater to the higher end as a core customer base (and they shouldn't try), but I'd suspect that margins on sales to such people are a tad bit better. That might partly explain why there are so many stores in The Woodlands.

Vindictiveness is hardly a justifiable business motive. It doesn't make any sense.

That is the largest pile of supposition I have ever seen.

The Crosstimbers location is barely 4 miles from the Yale location. By definition that means market cannabilization between the two stores. And the further out you go (Gulfgate, NW, East end), the weaker the argument gets. All you are saying is that Wal-Mart should get to put a big ugly unsuitable Supercenter in my neighborhood so people can save 4-7 minutes in the car. And you are completely forgetting locations on the Gulf fwy and 290 that are far easier to access than having to crunch through Downtown interchanges or mess with the 290/610 mess.

As for the "lunchtime" shoppers, you have got to be kidding me. It takes a minimum of 20-25 minutes round trip to get to the location (I make the trip every day) and that is assuming that the magic traffic fairy finds a way to keep the intersection of Waugh/Heights Blvd and Washington from becoming permanent impenetrable gridlock with the addition of Wal-Mart. That gives you an absolute maximum of 30 min to make your way through a couple football fields worth of cheap Chinese goods. And chances are very strong that these consumers have been cannabalized from suburban Wal-Marts, meaning a net zero in terms of revenue.

Finally, I am not saying Wal-Mart is being vindictive. I am saying that Wal-Mart is being Wal-Mart. They have had trouble competing directly with Target by trying to upscale their product lines and stores. So, they will use their size to compete with Target. A Target with no Wal-Mart nearby will always make more money than a Target with a Wal-Mart nearby. If Wal-Mart puts a store near every Target that is doing good business, they will hurt Target's bottom line. Bad numbers for Target means lower market capitalization means less money for advertising, expansion, and so on. Wal-Mart did this to kill off a number of local grocery and discount chains. They would open up as many competing stores as they could next to the targeted competitor chain, drop prices, operate at a loss if necessary, and then when the local chain folded, they would close up the duplicative location and raise prices.

Did you read the rest of this article?! It totally demoslishes your earlier argument that Walmart causes more harm than good for poor people.

An excerpt:

The article concludes that the poor would be the worst hit casualties in a campaign to stop Walmart.

I'm floored you'd even link that article.

And remember, there's much more to the inner loop than just the Heights. This Walmart is targeting the entire area, not just above 20th Street, and not just Target shoppers.

I never argued that Wal-Mart causes more harm than good for people in the lower income bracket (funny you deamningly call them "poor" people). My point has always been that a Wal-Mart supercenter is inappropriate for the neighborhood and is not even needed in light of the Crosstimbers location.

Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Wal-Mart has a long history of using their size to accomplish their business ends, from supply to retail. Wal-Mart just wants to throw sand into Target's gears.

I dispute your "demographics" (such as is your apparent understanding of the term); they are supposition and you made them up.

And you dispute my demographics with what? Your own supposition? Very convincing.

My understanding of the term is completely accurate. I did not make up anything. I have seen real data on property values, income levels, age, and education for the area. I have been involved in commercial real estate development inside the loop for years.

Wal-Mart's data is a closely held secret. However, a leaked memo from Wal-Mart's ad agency revealed that Wal-Mart's attempt to appeal to shoppers of higher end products had failed. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3229759

The average Wal-Mart customer earns 35k a year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html Far more people fitting that demographic live north of 20th than south.

Thus, 1) Wal-Mart's attempts at upscaling have failed; 2) Wal-Mart's main customer base lives closer to the new Crosstimbers location; and, ergo 3) the Yale location is directed at harming Target's business far more than benefitting those in the neighborhood who will have to deal with the increased traffic, drainage issues, increased demand on fire and police, and resulting damage to property values of living near a big, ugly Wal-Mart. We don't need it, we don't want it. Our tax dollars are needed to support it, our elected officials are needed to grant the variances. We have a right to block it in favor of a better suited development.

I am reasonably confident that if the world's largest retailer, one with computers so large and programs so detailed, and with inventory and delivery systems so efficient that when hurricanes are forming in the Gulf, Walmart is intercepting deliveries in mid-route and redirecting them to areas in the hurricane's path, so that residents can stock up on batteries, water and even esoteric items known to sell during hurricanes, that should they choose to build on Yale, it is because their research shows that the number of Walmart opponents is dwarfed by those who will shop there, even those who will not admit to their bohemian friends that they do so. If Walmart builds on Yale, it will be because of the benefits and nothing else...and they will be correct.

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.

It is still not a character attack. It is still not an ad hominem. How can you speak for poor people unless you are one or have been one? You don't know the lifestyle, and you don't understand the lifestyle. With all likelihood, your understanding of poverty or paycheck-to-paycheck living is something you know from Hollywood or that one time you took a wrong turn into the bad part of town before you got a GPS. That said, there are plenty of people here who gave testament to their personal hardships and those of their family and neighbors and explained that yes, they would like to finally have an inexpensive place to shop for beans and rice nearby.

Edit: Also, after rereading your third point, I have to ask what that has to do with Walmart at all? Walmart sells the product after it's been sold to them, and they'll mark it up based on the price they paid. They don't grow or subsidize the cost of production. That's the government's and agribusiness' fault. You've really missed the mark with your indignation if you blame Walmart for the low cost of processed foods. If you want the price of food to more accurately reflect the true cost of production, you should write a letter to your congressman, not join an anti-Walmart Facebook page.

I know. I've read what they've had to say, and I've come to the conclusion that all arguments given thus far against the construction of this Walmart are nothing more than examples of thinly veiled elitism. For examples see below:

Argument translations:

1) "Walmart will lower my property values." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. Home buyers won't pay a lot of money to live near that sort of stuff."

2) "Walmart increases crime." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. Those people are criminals."

3) "Walmart is bad ethics." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. I will continue to drive my 7 mpg SUV (10 highway! lol!) to my job at the oil conglomerate while eating at Boston Market but latch onto Walmart as if it's the only lil debbil practicing bad ethical judgment because white transh and dark-skinned people unsettle me."

3) "Walmart is more traffic." translates to "Walmart is white trash and dark-skinned people. I don't want them to drive the same streets as me. I'll completely ignore that any development on the proprty will increase traffic in order to drive my point home."

I've yet to read a coherent argument in opposition to this Walmart in this thread that does not reek of tyranny and elitism.

And yes, I hate Walmart, but I do compromise on my objections when I can buy a can of baby formula there considerably cheaper than I can anywhere else in this city. Liberal scion Michael Moore, of whom I'm a fan, once pointedly answered an inquiry questioning his values when it was noted that he drove a General Motors automobile (directly after "Roger and Me" hit the screens) with something to the effect of only the rich can afford to base all their decisions on their ethics. I am not rich, and the rich do not speak for me.

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.

I wasn't responding to why Walmart was expanding, as you weren't addressing that either. I responded to your assertion that poor folks inside the loop don't need and don't shop at Walmart.

It is not an ad hominem attack, and without proof there are no merits to the argument. That was the point made. Anecdotal evidence is all that's available to address what "lower income residents of the inner loop" want or need.

I've not discussed the individuals who've designed or built or been contracted to do either of those for Walmart (though many would probably be happy for the work right now - I've lately met with several engineering firms and construction companies who've had to lay-off employees and cut back the work weeks of those who remained). Throughout this thread, I've spoken only from two points: 1) the inherent hypocrisy of those who've singled out Walmart for their corporate misconduct while giving a pass to other, equally vile corporations and 2) the inherent hypocrisy of those who don't live paycheck to paycheck speaking for those who do. The other pro-construction perspectives have been taken by several other posters, not me.

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.

All your postulations and conclusions are entirely based on the assumption that "low-income inner-loop residents" don't ever shop at Walmart - I guess because there isn't one nearby (I don't know, that seems to be about the extent of the logic). I contend "low-income inner-loop residents" DO shop at Walmart already, they just drive farther to do it. As neither of these points can be proven because no evidence has ever been amassed regarding this, except by perhaps Walmart, then perhaps we should trust the anecdotes of people who are "low-income inner-loop residents" or at least who once were. Are you a "low-income inner-loop resident", or are you just another person who knows better than the "low-income inner-loop residents" about what's good for them?

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.