LookyHere

C&D Hardware and 14th ST Fiesta. Target is a stretch but not by bike.

I also ride my bike to pick up assorted needs around the neighborhood. I ride to Kroger, Fiesta, CVS

Yes it "could" marginalize the bike path, but we don't know.

That's right. We don't. But it could. It might not increase crime, but chances are greater that it will. There is a slim possibility it will not increase flooding or cause more polluted run offs in to our water, but statistically chances are significantly greater that it will. It may allow some small businesses to survive, but there will be more loss than gain in the independent, local business. Local businesses help our economy more than national retailers, especially big boxes. No one truly knows what WILL happen, but based on what has happened in other cities and towns, the stats lean toward the negative impacts being much more likely and that is what people are trying to do- prevent the negative or at least mitigate it as much as possible (knowing that any development will bring increases in the negative but if done wisely can be much less than Walmart).

Anyone predicting big changes on either side is making things up for shock value. The change will be subtle, except for the sudden drying up of new construction. As less money is invested in the neighborhood, prices will slow and stagnate.

If this is true, what explains the growing values of homes in the Norhill that were posted about earlier? Historic, deed restricted and continues to grow in value. My friends who live in a nicely renovated 2/2 on 14th, which is a less desirable street due to the traffic, have seen their home increase in value to the tune of $50k in the 4 years since they bought it.

Boycotting a store you like to try to hurt one you don't does not make any sense and will in no way help to achieve the result that you are looking for. I know what an effective boycott is, and in this case only your boycott of Wal-Mart itself makes sense. Otherwise by extension you may as well just boycott the entire city, that'll show 'em.

I think she would be boycotting the developer.

Yep, the acting president of Responsible Urban Development for Houston lives in a McTownhome..

Yes and the widening of Koehler will push the street right up to his fence. Wouldn't you be against that if it was your townhome? Or are people who support the Walmart too good to live in townhomes?

To the previous quote, I rode my bike down Heights, across 12th and back across 8th and all the Walmart signs I saw were older homes except one new construction. I don't think you can pigeonhole the opposition based on residence, as all kinds of people are against it. Just as all kinds of people are for it. The constant stereotyping, whether it's of Walmart shoppers or Walmart protesters, really adds less than nothing to the conversation.

Oh, and mark me down as a "Yes, please" on that Spec's. I think the bayou marks the southern border of the dry area.

Another "yes please" from another parent. Honestly, after what happened on Washington, I would not be surprised if Spec's is seriously looking at this development. They want a store in the area and this just might be the best possible location!

my earlier statements about spandex were more tongue in cheek (even though I didn't make that very clear) and based primarily on that website I linked in the same post which seems to single out spandex.

I have nothing against Walmart shoppers. To be fair, here is a group of people that probably reject the notion of Walmart as much as I do and are sometimes even more unsightly than the peopleofwalmart, and definitely more obnoxious

http://www.latfh.com/

very often in this thread I read someone saying crime will be increased with walmart, and that the strain on the existing police force will be increased.

this seems to only revolve around walmart, not target, not bed bath and beyond, not home depot, not any other big box stores, or even other commercial retail options that could go in that exact place other than a walmart.

based on that, I make the inevitable conclusion that this means that people believe the walmart shoppers will attract crime, or even are responsible for the increased crime themselves.

Anyway, that was my reasoning for making any statements about walmart shoppers.

my earlier statements about spandex were more tongue in cheek (even though I didn't make that very clear) and based primarily on that website I linked in the same post which seems to single out spandex.

I know J008 pretty much covered it but the recent lawsuit filed against Walmart discusses how it has actually been their corporate policy to not have security in their parking lots. Another cost saving measure to keep their low-but-steadily-increasing-at-more-than-50%-on-some-items prices down. There was an architect present at one of the public Stop Walmart meetings who discussed several reasons why Walmarts have so many crimes. The large, large parking lot with no security is one, having no windows is another, being open 24 hours was yet another factor.

I would venture to say that crimes are perpetrated against Walmart shoppers, rather than committed by them. They are easy targets for the reasons listed.

Probably in the name of preserving the neighborhood's character. You know, since that... er... neighborhood has so much... uh... character?

Again, I think you are misunderstanding who and what these people are fighting for. The "real" opposition to the Walmart is not about saving the Heights' character. You see that from people who just hear about the issue and want to add their 2 cents but the real people who write the blogs and talk to the press are not arguing "character." I have never heard or read that. They are worried about traffic and quality of life, but not character. Now, quality of life is just as subjective as character, I agree. Still, you need to start paying attention to the real people who have lives that will really be affected by this if you want to argue the merits of the opposition. Have you driven down Koehler? If they widen that street, it will be right up against some people's front doors. Literally.

And the fact that they are not arguing for character makes the "just ask for something that matches the neighborhood better" argument moot. Size, yes. Aesthetics, no.

Problem though.

WalMart is not in a position where they need these people to agree with them. If they even see the opposition, they likely see demands (ie don't build, or go somewhere else) as unreasonable, and as such, they think to themselves (or have a meeting in some board room): these people are being unreasonable, and we don't need them on our side to complete this structure, lets not even talk to them.

Whereas, if they were making reasonable 'demands': beautify your structure, or talk about how property value has affected other walmart areas, or what steps you are taking here to ensure that property value will be more positively affected than other locations; work with the city to more efficiently move traffic in a way that won't affect certain habitats; talk about how you will employ security measures and work closely with the city PD to help reduce the potential for crime.

I mean, if the main concerns really are crime, traffic, and property value, then the approach shouldn't be taken that you don't want them to build because of that, the approach should be taken, we want to work with you so that our concerns are addressed. that doesn't mean you're starting in the middle, it just means you are more open for discussion.

although, anyone who is saying anything about the looks, or how walmart will affect their property value are not making any kind of argument that I can understand on any level at all. There is no way they can look anyone in the eye and tell them that the corrugated warehouse wasteland that is Yale south of i-10 is better for their property values than a walmart will be.

Clearly opposition to the project doesn't see it this way. Walmart is hosting a community meeting and hiring PR gurus, so certainly they see some kind of threat. They have been kept out of other communities in Houston and all over the country. The fight for a lot of these people is real.

Yes, there are issues with that area but what I think people hope (and I can only say "think" because I don't live over there and don't know anyone on a personal level who does) that development occurs in an intelligent way, not just a free for all. I do know that the Superneighborhood council has been working with developers and their position currently seems to be one like you suggest. However, it seems residents of that area and the surrounding communities are not willing to settle.

This.

Reading through this thread, it's clear to me that people ARE trying their best to veil at least some deep feeling against Walmart because it's Walmart.

The more pro-active thing would have been to try to get an audience early on in hopes of getting design input.

I agree with the 1st statement, especially that it's a deep feeling about Walmart, itself, which is to say not about poor people in general. However in the first several pages posters weren't veiling their dislike of Walmart. Several people openly said they did not like Walmart as a company and then were subjected to long-winded lectures on how ridiculous they were for feeling that way or even attacked on a personal level. They were told that they needed a real reason to dislike Walmart, not their silly political or ethical ones, so they stopped making that argument. More practical, less emotional reasons surfaced: traffic, crime, property values. This still wasn't good enough and posters were repeatedly told that their concerns about these issues aren't valid.

It has been stated before in this thread, but you should never start from a middle ground if middle ground is what you are trying to achieve. If you start in the middle, a corporation like Walmart will negotiate you right back to where they wanted to start from in the 1st place. Intelligent opposition starts at the exact other end of the spectrum and lets Walmart negotiate them to the middle. This is how a lot of people I have spoken with feel.

It's kind of annoying me that this thread's new pol keeps getting it bumped without adding new content.

It was never the intent of the OP to have a poll. In order to be consistent with the logic justifying the existence of the duplicate "non-confrontational" thread, I think that the OP's intent for this thread to not have a poll should be respected and that the poll should be disabled. Either that, or the two threads should be merged. But clearly there is a need for consistency.

Really? I believe based on the OP's own opinions on the subject matter that she would welcome the poll. Weren't you the individual who complained about too many threads and requested a merge? I think many people wanted the poll and were interested in the results so unless a 3rd thread is posted, this post is as good for a poll as anywhere else.

I would assume that they're referring to neighborhoods south of I-10, but honestly, that's beside the point. It's not within the purview of government to block a development because we think it would be a bad business decision on the part of the anchor tenant.

And one other point: there's a difference between being pro-Walmart and not being anti-(this)-Walmart. I'm not a frequent Walmart shopper, and I'd rather something else were built on this site, but my retail preferences do not constitute a legitimate claim on the rights of two private parties (Ainbinder and Walmart) to enter into a lawful contract with each other.

First, I want to say in general for this thread, many people have said they don't like Walmart, don't want Walmart but never said that they would openly be protesting it. It looks to me like this thread started before the Facebook group and anti-Walmart organizations were even put together. I have to wonder if the attack mode that was so strong in the beginning of the discussion didn't galvanize some people to take action when previously they were just disappointed? Just because people don't like Walmart and don't want it on this land does not mean they plan on standing on Yale with picket signs. Some of the time, it's just griping, commiserating, or wishfully thinking out loud.

So, yes, not hating the Yale Walmart is not the same as being all out pro-Walmart JUST AS disliking Walmart and hoping this project fails isn't the same as chaining yourself to a tree on Ainbinder's property and sending flaming bags of dog poop to their HQs.

The individuals who organized the Facebook group and are most active in this fight are, as I understand it without being heavily involved, residents of streets like Koehler. They see this development as a serious threat to their home value, safety, comfort, way of life. Sure, corporations and property owners can enter in to agreements, but City officials should also be accountable to the people who voted for them. The Mayor has said explicitly that she cannot and will not deny Walmart the right to build there just cuz, but I think if the anti-Walmart people do find cause for permits to be denied, like traffic issues and crime concerns backed with good numbers, that the City can, and should be able to, support the residents/tax payers over an out-of-state corporation. This is MY OPINION. I am not trying to convince anyone that they are wrong in how they feel. This is just my side of the story and it's not being expressed to tell you or anyone that they are wrong in their OPINION. Please do not waste breath or key strokes trying to convince me otherwise as if I haven't even considered both sides of the issue. I am smarter than that and so are most of you. Plus, the reasons why Walmart should be able to build here have been repeated ad nauseum on this page and they still haven't changed my mind. The fact remains, it's all very subjective and no one knows what the outcome will be if Walmart builds so everyone has the right to try and get the outcome they find most desirable. It's all so very American!

just because they will be coming from all over will likely not have any affect on the demographics.

the people that will be coming from 'all over' will likely fit the same demographic as the demographic of the neighborhood it is closest to.

I have never shopped at walmart all the time, but there are rare occasions when I want to get something from walmart, and as I live about the same distance from the walmart on 45/almeda and this location, I'll likely choose this location (eventhough the one on 45 is on my daily commute), simply because of its location.

While I agree that might be true, that was not the argument being made earlier in this thread.

A few points that the "why can't people just go to Crosstimbers" argument overlooks:

1 - It's pretty likely that Walmart will design and stock the Crosstimbers store and the West End store differently in order to appeal to the different demographics of the two neighborhoods.

2 - Even though I live north of 20th St, I'm far more likely to be south of I-10 than north of 610. I currently drive past this site several times a week. I'm virtually never near Crosstimbers and 45.

I hear you there but I thought a big part of the pro-Walmart argument on this forum was that people will be coming from all over to shop here and that this is not about the demographics of this neighborhood, but neighborhoods with in a large radius, many of whom would actually be closer to Crosstimbers?

To the guy who negged my previous post, could you please provide some insight as to why you did that? I can't for the life of me find a single thing offensive in the post, so I'm curious if you did it because you've somehow convolutedly associated everything I write with being a pro-Walmart, anti-Heights sentiment. Frankly, I don't think you read the post at all. I think you just reflexively negged me, and if that's the case, I think it's stupid.

Goavs, I'm talking about you.

Honestly, you care about someone liking or disliking your post? Wow! Ha. I always thought those "ratings" were kind of lame. I click here or there, just to see what happens but I certainly never give any real thought to it like "Oh no! I have a negative reputation point on HAIF!" I'm just really surprised. I think calling someone out and asking them to explain why is a little childish. If he doesn't like your comment, he doesn't like it. You certainly dislike plenty of comments but prefer to express yourself through verbosity rather than clicky reputation buttons. No one should have to explain themselves. If he wanted to debate, he would have added comments.

An article released yesterday.

DISCLAIMER: I DID, indeed, get this from the Stop Walmart group BUT it also has some interesting facts for those of you who shop at Walmart to save money. It might be time to head back to Fiesta for your oatmeal and Windex.

An excerpt of the 1st few paragraphs below. If you would like to read it in its entirety: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/walmart-raises-prices/19587730/

Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), which for years has touted its prowess at lowering prices, has been doing the opposite as it tries to bolster its bottom line amid stagnating sales.

A JPMorgan Chase (JPM) study of a Walmart Supercenter in Virginia found that the world's largest retailer has raised prices by nearly 6% on average over the past six weeks, according to the New York Post. Reuters says it was the biggest sequential increase since JPMorgan started the study in January 2009.

Some Prices Hiked Over 60%

Some of the price hikes were considerably larger. For instance, the price of a 32-ounce bottle of Windex household cleaner jumped 50%, a 12-ounce box of Quaker Oats instant grits climbed 65% and a 50-ounce container of Tide detergent rose by more than 50%. A spokesperson for the Bentonville, Ark., company could not immediately be reached for comment.

The results of the price-hike study aren't entirely surprising. Shares of Wal-Mart, which rose at the height of the recent recession, are down more than 2% this year amid lackluster performance at its U.S. stores, where same-store sales fell 1.1% during the 13 weeks ended April 30. When Wal-Mart announced a revamping of the management team overseeing these stores, including the departures of CEO and President of Wal-Mart U.S. Eduardo Castro-Wright and Chief Merchandising Officer John Fleming, current Wal-Mart U.S. CEO Bill Simon bluntly said, "our mandate is clear: increase customer traffic, make sure our products are relevant to our customer and never give an inch on price leadership."

Unfortunately for Wal-Mart, keeping prices low is tough with less store traffic. To make matters worse, rivals appear to be doing better. Target (TGT) reported a 2% gain in July same-store sales, which are a key metric for retail investors. Kohl's (KSS) reported a 4.1% gain. Wal-Mart stopped releasing monthly same-store sales figures for its units last year, so making an apples-to-apples comparison is difficult.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/walmart-raises-prices/19587730/?icid=sphere_copyright

I don't have any interest in going back and finding the post about this, but I do want to comment on something someone mentioned about the Facebook page. So, a couple of people have joined the group to act out and post pro-Walmart comments. Someone here suggested that these few people (four, at the most by my reading) dilute the group's numbers and the comment was something like "So much for their 4000+ members."

This is symbolic of how ridiculous this whole thread has become. Really? Even if 10% of the Facebook group were "moles or trolls", that would be 490 out of 4900 and change. I mean, I wouldn't even look at those numbers if someone hadn't tried to argue that point. At this time, I check this post about every 3rd day and while there will be a good 10 posts between the last time I read it, it's the same comments over and over again. Yawn.

The only certain "FACT" here is that it's all opinion at this point. What proWalmart people say will happen, what antiWalmart people say will happen. Unless someone here has a magic crystal ball, no one can be certain of what WILL happen. The anti Walmart people, myself among them, are trying to prevent what they fear might happen but no one knows for sure. And none of the "Go Walmart" people can be sure this will be the boon they are saying. It's just your opinion and it doesn't make sense to state what will happen in the future as fact. Only one thing in the future is certain: someday we will all be dead. Until then, your projections, objections and reactions are all just your opinion.

Does anyone know what is up with 'Whats Up Cupcake'? I've been by the lot at 14th and Shepherd the past two nights around 7 PM and nothing there. On their website they list their hours in two separate places and they conflict, but both said they would be there on Tuesday evenings. Have they moved or gone out of business?

Frosted Betty will be in front of OoLaLa on Studewood every Thursday afternoon. I stopped in when I saw the sign hanging in their window. I thought maybe the baby store was moving out and cupcake bakery moving in but they are just going to be pulling up their trailer.

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

THIS is the answer. I know my friends in Norhill really want a "no means no" protected status. If that neighborhood wants it, let them have it with out all this other nonsense.

It will actually make the neighborhood more accessible. The only way I could afford to get in the neighborhood was to buy a bungalow when the builders weren't buying them up to tear them down and replace them with 3500 sq ft monsters. I probably saved a 100 year old oak in the process. If the builders are given back all the power, the neighborhood will become Bellaire jr. (but may then be able to buy out the Wal-Mart property when

it decides to close up, like they are doing with the Sam's Club on Dunlavy).

This is the case for us as well. We bought a medium sized bungalow that was renovated by the previous owners. The renovation is almost 10 years old now but it suits our small family fine. My partner and I think often about adding another child to the mix but we cannot afford a larger, new construction and there are very few bungalows with more than 3 bedrooms. I office from home, so we have to have that space available. Preservation of bungalows allows us and many of our friends (who are artists, academics, musicians as well as middle management professionals) to call the Heights home. I have several friends (a ballet dancer, one who works at TUTS and another who works at the Alley) who live in Norhill, which I believe has the strictest historic ordinances in the Heights. They have all had to make "conforming" changes and go through the HCAC. It did not make any of their changes cost prohibitive. These are not super high income people. I do not live in a Historic district but the renovation to my bungalow was pretty conforming. If conforming was totally cost prohibitive, the young couple who owned this home before us probably wouldn't have been able to do it this way. The most expensive part of a renovation like this is wood windows and they are well worth it in the long run.

This location really isn't very "urban", or at least what I think of urban as being. It's only semi-dense and centrally located, near a large neighborhood and an interstate. Show me what Wal-Mart would propose to put on the magnificent mile in Chicago, that would be much more urban.

But this is Houston and the mixed use development and residential density from apartments and townhomes are about as "urban" as a sprawling city like Houston gets.

I Bet We Can Get Betty White to Host Saturday Night Live!

It worked and was worth it. I also like "I bet this dog poodle in a tin foil hat can get more fans than Glenn Beck"

it did not say:

The GHPA will not tell you what your house must look like

The GHPA will not tell you what materials you may use on your house

The GHPA will not tell you what size your home may be

The GHPA will not tell you what landscaping is required

The GHPA will not make you bring up to their "standards" before issuing any permits to do work

The GHPA will keep their not intrude upon individual homeowners private property rights.

The GHPA will not change their mind and add hundreds of new restrictions at a later point.

There are alot of things they did not say....those are just a few....its safer to keep them out of your business from the get go.

I still cant believe there is actually a discussion on whether or not a POLITICIAN, gets to decide for YOU, what YOUR house should look like. ITS INSANE!

I had the City Counsel meeting streaming on line to hear the Heights Walmart speakers and Lovell brought up a couple of these other topics. I couldn't tell you exactly what it was because I was only half paying attention at this point but I definitely heard her say that repairs would not be cause for the city to make you bring your house up to the new standards. She mentioned set back as an example, saying that if you had to do repairs or make changes this would not force you to meet the set back requirements if your house was not in compliance before the ordinance is passed. I believe she also mentioned "not" and "landscaping."

One other thing I just noticed is who would make up the 13 member HAHC panel. This is straight from the proposed amendment:

1. Professional achaeologist

2. Professional historian

3. Achitectural historian

4. Representative of a cultural history organization

5. Registered architect

6. Landscape architect or an urgan planner

7. Professional real estate appraiser certified to perform appraisals for the city.

8. Remodeler or builder registered withthe TRCC, with knowledge of and interest in restoration, historic building renovation and compatible new construction.

9-13. Citizen representatives

If you didn't think this was weighted in any way, read on....

Positions 1-9 shall be appointed by the MAYOR, subject to confirmation by city council.

Postions 10-13 shall be appointed by city council.

If you need 7 votes, good luck.

I have been to a couple variance hearings and I can tell you that the builder in question is well known for siding with new development. I know that's only one vote but I thought it was worth mentioning.