Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[TheNiche]

Ten times more? Are you really saying a little Trader Joes would have the same impact as a Wal-Mart Supercenter? Now you are really going out on a limb with that one.

I said no such thing.

And if you're going to impose your version morality on the community, so will I: Reading comprehension is a virtue. God told me so (and my god could beat up your god).

[JCR]

Yeah, there’s a lot of WalMart “hate” out there.

Some object to WalMart on “moral grounds”, which I gather is in part a result of being in the habit of using WalMart as a proxy to relieve personal angst over consumerism, affluence, evolution of small town life or urban development.

It's just the SWPLification of the Heights area. Can't these people move to Austin or something?

[RedScare]

It's just the SWPLification of the Heights area. Can't these people move to Austin or something?

That would explain why SWLP was bought by Target.

Stuff White People Like purchased by Target

[LookyHere]

Yeah, there’s a lot of WalMart “hate” out there.

Some object to WalMart on “moral grounds”, which I gather is in part a result of being in the habit of using WalMart as a proxy to relieve personal angst over consumerism, affluence, evolution of small town life or urban development.

Funny that you say this because far earlier in this thread, some people against Walmart were being criticized for being too affluent and superficial.

[Ross]

My current hypothesis is that Trader Joe's has thus far avoided Texas because of our liquor laws (they sell hard stuff in their stores) and/or the alcohol beverage lobby. Or it could have to do with their Wst coast-based distribution system. I'm not sure why they just opened a store in Omaha, NE rather than say, San Angelo or Pflugerville.

Every grocery store in California sells hard liquor (at least all the ones I ever went to did). They have different laws out there.

[RedScare]

Funny that you say this because far earlier in this thread, some people against Walmart were being criticized for being too affluent and superficial.

I think the earlier criticisms were accurate. Most of those criticizing Walmart wished for fancier stores to shop at. Examples given were specialty shoe and clothing stores, HEB (a new chic one, as opposed to the old one located right inside the Heights), boutique hotels, and now, a Trader Joes. Those debunking the criticisms are not uber-consumers. In fact, that's the point. If you're shopping for necessities, Walmart is just fine. If you're shopping for status, Walmart simply will not do. Which sounds more affluent and superficial to you?

[LookyHere]

I think the earlier criticisms were accurate. Most of those criticizing Walmart wished for fancier stores to shop at. Examples given were specialty shoe and clothing stores, HEB (a new chic one, as opposed to the old one located right inside the Heights), boutique hotels, and now, a Trader Joes. Those debunking the criticisms are not uber-consumers. In fact, that's the point. If you're shopping for necessities, Walmart is just fine. If you're shopping for status, Walmart simply will not do. Which sounds more affluent and superficial to you?

This rationale is tired.

Edited July 22, 2010 by LookyHere

[editor]

I don't think Trader Joe's counts as upscale. When I lived in Chicago, there were two in the neighborhood. They have good stuff (like peanut butter-stuffed pretzel nuggets, and candy-coated sunflower seeds), but it's not a full grocery store. You couldn't live solely on what is on offer at TJ's, unless you don't value your health or variety. The produce department was four bins of random vegetables that changed weekly, and I don't think there was a meat department at all.

Trader Joe's is to grocery stores what a neighborhood curio shop is to a department store.

[RedScare]

I don't think Trader Joe's counts as upscale. When I lived in Chicago, there were two in the neighborhood. They have good stuff (like peanut butter-stuffed pretzel nuggets, and candy-coated sunflower seeds), but it's not a full grocery store. You couldn't live solely on what is on offer at TJ's, unless you don't value your health or variety. The produce department was four bins of random vegetables that changed weekly, and I don't think there was a meat department at all.

Trader Joe's is to grocery stores what a neighborhood curio shop is to a department store.

I didn't really intend to make it sound upscale, so much as hip and trendy to those who don't have one nearby. Kinda like the Coors of the neighborhood market world.

[AtticaFlinch]

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.

[LookyHere]

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.

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.

Many people in the Heights just plain ARE affluent. Apparently this is some grave sin in the forum. The guy who started the Facebook page lives on one of the streets where the Walmart may be built. Surely it's more for him than the appearance of affluence; than trying to impress others. Frankly, if people were really only in it for the looks they would welcome the Walmart purely so they could snub it.

[Jesse]

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....

[s3mh]

Wal-Mart didn't even have the property under contract before the community created a ruckus. It was just talk. Besides which, both sides would most certainly have had a signed non-disclosure agreement--standard practice for a land sale--so going public would have violated the terms of their agreement.

Note that the letter you cited provided only an indicator for the number of trips generated by Wal-Mart but no indication of the number of trips that would otherwise have been generated by other stores.

Also note that you misstated the conclusion. To calculate the number of trips generated by a Wal-Mart Supercenter on a weekday (the only time where congestion might possibly be an issue), the formula is:

74.12 * (store size in sq. ft. / 1,000) - 3,977 = trips generated

So, if this is a 155,000-square-foot store, then you might expect 7,289 trips to be generated by it.

A 2006 traffic count for Yale Street just south of the I-10 feeder was 10,430 vehicles per day (vpd), and Heights Blvd. just south of the I-10 feeder had a count of 13,800 vpd. (For perspective, the same count for Studemont just south of the I-10 feeder was 29,550 vpd.)

Consider that drivers exiting I-10 from the east (like me) may turn onto either Heights Blvd. or Yale and enter the Wal-Mart off of either Kohler or Yale, so that some fraction of the new traffic would be diverted to Heights Blvd. instead of Yale. Also consider that some fraction of traffic will be coming up Heights or Yale from the south. I might expect a majority of those 7,289 trips to impact Yale Street at I-10 directly, however if the adjustment factor is 60%, then that's only 4,373 new trips on any given weekday.

...and again, those are mostly additional trips that would largely have been made to inconveniently transit someone else's neighborhood if not your own (except, it isn't actually your neighborhood).

There are no non-disclosure agreements in this deal. Ainbinder and Wal-Mart have been speaking publicly about the deal for weeks. Ainbinder rejected HEB's bid in favor of Wal-Mart's bid. Ainbinder released drafts of the site plan. Both sides have retained counsel. That is not "just talk".

I did not mistate the conclusion. An average Wal-Mart supercenter generates and average of 10k trips per-day. I did not say that the proposed Wal-Mart at I-10 would generate 10k trips per-day. It may very well generate more because of its visibility on the heavily traveled I-10 corridor.

People going to Wal-Mart from either direction on I-10 are going to turn down Yale. If they go down Heights, they will have to cut accross Kohler or Center and sit through a bunch of lights. The fraction of drivers that will do this will not mitigate the traffic impact on Yale, especially considering that there is no left turn on Heights from eastbound Washington and the preference of most commuters to use Yale to avoid the train crossing on Heights. You can provide all the weak rationalizations you can come up with, but the undisputable fact is that a Wal-Mart supercenter will bring way more traffic than a grocery store, and Yale St., Heights and Kohler are not suited to handle that traffic. The Wal-Mart supercenter concept is a suburban concept. They put them out in undeveloped areas where the land is cheap because they are so huge and need tons of land and create massive amounts of traffic. Wal-Mart's sales have not been growing at the rate shareholders want, so they are now going to try to cram supercenters into urban areas. it won't work. Yale St. is not FM 1960. The proposed development is less than one mile from the hike and bike trail crossing and a school crossing.

Finally, it is my neighborhood. I drive Yale every day to work. I cross Yale every day when I run. My kids will cross Yale every day when they are old enough to start school. My wife rides her bike down Heights to the bayou all the time.

[kat_zor]

I don't think Trader Joe's counts as upscale. When I lived in Chicago, there were two in the neighborhood. They have good stuff (like peanut butter-stuffed pretzel nuggets, and candy-coated sunflower seeds), but it's not a full grocery store.

Our TJ's in Oakland & Berkeley were pretty complete grocery stores, with produce, meat, canned goods and alcohol (the infamous two-buck Chuck). They even had nice cheese and floral departments. My only complaint was that EVERYTHING in produce was pre-packaged so that you had to buy four avocados, two apples or three bell peppers. And eveything was wrapped in styrofoam and plastic packaging.

[s3mh]

I said no such thing.

And if you're going to impose your version morality on the community, so will I: Reading comprehension is a virtue. God told me so (and my god could beat up your god).

Then what are you saying? So what if a 15k sq ft Trader Joes has more trips per sq ft than a 150k sq ft Wal-Mart? Reading comprehension is a virtue. But, there has to be something to comprehend.

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.

[s3mh]

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....

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.

[J008]

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

Renters pay their share of property taxes through the rent they are charged without the benefit of homestead exemptions or tax deductibility.

Unless of course the landlord negotiated some walmart style exemption.

[Jesse]

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.

Renters pay their share of property taxes through the rent they are charged without the benefit of homestead exemptions or tax deductibility.

Unless of course the landlord negotiated some walmart style exemption.

Good points. Forgot about that. Neeeeeeevermind then!

[RedScare]

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.

I don't think the Heights residents have an unfair advantage at all. Proof is the fact that Heights residents opposed to Walmart have so far unsuccessfully stopped any plans by Walmart. My only point (one that I have to make often) is to remind s3 and Looky and a few others that there are residents of the Heights that are not opposed to Walmart, in spite of their posts to the contrary. In fact, there are plenty of residents who WANT the Walmart.

I am impressed that a Facebook page opposing Walmart has 3,500 likes. If they can get 600 more, it would add up to 10% of Heights Super Neighborhood's population. That means only 90% don't mind a Walmart. I guess that would also mean that 100% of SN22 supports Walmart...except of course, the guy that started the Facebook page.

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.

[callisthenes]

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.

Many people in the Heights just plain ARE affluent. Apparently this is some grave sin in the forum. The guy who started the Facebook page lives on one of the streets where the Walmart may be built. Surely it's more for him than the appearance of affluence; than trying to impress others. Frankly, if people were really only in it for the looks they would welcome the Walmart purely so they could snub it.

Sure, some people have legitimate grievances or concerns over a WalMart in that particular location. Somebody replied to my earlier post with numbers regarding traffic that seem like a reasonable concern.

My thing is that I view Target and WalMart as the same type of business, and on the first page of this thread there was a lot of immediate reaction to WalMart that can be summed up as “Ew, icky-poo!” So I’m trying to understand the differences people see between the two.

What bothered me most was on this forum and others, I’ve seen people in an effort to “fight” the WalMart go so far as to site demographics saying that “those people” will be shopping there (North of Main types? Third Warders? Mexicans? Working class?). And apparently there are “ironic” websites mocking WalMart workers and shoppers. I’ve seen similar statements on threads regarding the Fiesta on Studewood. Too many wierdos, Latinos, “others”. What is it about WalMart that motivates some people to be so derisive and divisive?

[AtticaFlinch]

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.

[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.

[Jesse]

I am impressed that a Facebook page opposing Walmart has 3,500 likes. If they can get 600 more, it would add up to 10% of Heights Super Neighborhood's population. That means only 90% don't mind a Walmart. I guess that would also mean that 100% of SN22 supports Walmart...except of course, the guy that started the Facebook page.

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.

I'm sorry but that's faulty logic. Just because 90% haven't chimed in to the Facebook page doesn't mean they don't mind it. It means they haven't chimed in. In fact, unless you regularly visit HAIF, Swamplot, or one of the news websites on the day or two that it was publicised, there's probably a good chance you don't know about it. There aren't signs, banners, billboards, etc.

Until every single resident votes or somehow expresses their opinion one way or the other (or option 'C' of "I don't care either way), nobody can say "most are opposed" or "most are unopposed". Nobody knows. 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".

Amen.

[TheNiche]

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....

You cannot judge demographics based upon the price of single family homes. First of all, you're ignoring apartments and garage apartments. Secondly, demographics lag waaaaay behind single-family home prices. You wouldn't move out of the neighborhood the moment that your house became too expensive for you to buy (if you didn't already own it). No, you'd probably stick around for a good long while. And if you were a landlord with a rent property, you'd probably defer maintenance and milk it by allowing the cruddy rental-quality decor to depreciate before having it flipped or selling for lot value.

Also, the $35,000 income level was the average for each Wal-Mart shopper, and if you have a couple of Wal-Mart shoppers living together, that becomes a really respectable sum...and after all, fully half of Wal-Mart shoppers make more than that!

And yeah, the other guys pointed out about property taxes being paid indirectly through rent. Renters should have a say in municipal politics.

There are no non-disclosure agreements in this deal. Ainbinder and Wal-Mart have been speaking publicly about the deal for weeks. Ainbinder rejected HEB's bid in favor of Wal-Mart's bid. Ainbinder released drafts of the site plan. Both sides have retained counsel. That is not "just talk".

NDAs are standard practice, particularly for Wal-Mart. (They probably had an active LOI, but that's completely unbinding.) But it would've been outright dumb for them to maintain silence. Good corporate communications practices are proactive. They had a meeting with the community, the notes of which indicated that the parcel did not yet have a contract in place, but that they would within coming weeks.

As for the site plan that was released, those are very preliminary and are typically drawn up by the retail brokerage firm to help their prospective buyer envision a deal. They do not represent a binding agreement or even one that is preliminary.

People going to Wal-Mart from either direction on I-10 are going to turn down Yale. If they go down Heights, they will have to cut accross Kohler or Center and sit through a bunch of lights. The fraction of drivers that will do this will not mitigate the traffic impact on Yale, especially considering that there is no left turn on Heights from eastbound Washington and the preference of most commuters to use Yale to avoid the train crossing on Heights.

Heights has a higher traffic count than Yale, and if Kohler is signalized at Yale and Heights (which will no doubt happen whether a Wal-Mart is developed on this site or something else), then its tit-for-tat, really, as far as someone exiting I-10 westbound--like me--would be concerned.

The Wal-Mart supercenter concept is a suburban concept. They put them out in undeveloped areas where the land is cheap because they are so huge and need tons of land and create massive amounts of traffic. Wal-Mart's sales have not been growing at the rate shareholders want, so they are now going to try to cram supercenters into urban areas. it won't work. Yale St. is not FM 1960. The proposed development is less than one mile from the hike and bike trail crossing and a school crossing.

So wait, in the very same post, you're complaining that a Wal-Mart would generate too much traffic (possibly much higher than average because it is off of I-10) and also that Wal-Mart's business model won't work at this location because it is only Yale Street.

And you're positing that urban areas are not meant to be subjected to such "massive amounts of traffic", such as would be appropriate for a suburban site. And you desire to keep retail away from places where people walk, hike, or bike.

I think you've mistaken the West End and the Heights for suburbs. They aren't. Wake up and smell the diesel fumes, man! You're living in the urban core of one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country. Traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, pollution, congestion, density, diverse peoples mingling together in the same marketplaces, cutthroat business competition...that's what surrounds you.

Finally, it is my neighborhood. I drive Yale every day to work. I cross Yale every day when I run. My kids will cross Yale every day when they are old enough to start school. My wife rides her bike down Heights to the bayou all the time.

Your neighborhood is part of a larger community, my community. I'll yield for pedestrians, but not for your 'Woodlands South' concept of quality of life.

Then what are you saying? So what if a 15k sq ft Trader Joes has more trips per sq ft than a 150k sq ft Wal-Mart? Reading comprehension is a virtue. But, there has to be something to comprehend.

Well, Trader Joes takes up less acreage than a Wal-Mart, meaning that if one were on this site, there'd be other retailers (or alternative land uses) off to the side of it. They'd generate traffic, too, possibly more or possibly less per square foot than would a Wal-Mart, but a Trader Joes (or other convenience-oriented grocer) would tend to skew the average to the higher end.

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.

I haven't. Lay off the straw men fallacies.

And might I say, it's remarkable how the American upper and middle classes have adopted a persecution complex to justify a sort of socioeconomic warfare against stores that are in any way associated with people of lesser means. (At least, that's what I gather from your utterly bizarre application of objectivism to this situation.)

[barracuda]

… 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.

So all corporations are evil?

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.

I would bet the vast majority of those shopping at Central Market and Whole Foods live in the vicinity of those stores (River Oaks, Bellaire, Uptown), none of which are located in the Heights. And yet, you’re presenting an argument that it’s the Heights residents who are pretentious because they assumedly shop there. The major supermarkets in the Heights are Fiesta and Kroger. I guess you don’t visit the Heights often, because the Fiesta near me is always busy, and most of the clientele are working class and mostly Hispanic folks.

I do think Central Market can be kind of pretentious, because it’s overpriced gourmet food that isn’t necessarily any better than what you find elsewhere. However, plenty of folks without lots of money shop at Whole Foods because they care about their health or the welfare of the food system that Whole Foods is more diligent than others about supporting. Yes, they sell some overpriced fancy things and I think their CEO is a douchbag, but the core spirit of the store does not seem pretentious to me. It would seem the douchey person would be the one who patronizes a store that abuses human and workers rights.

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.

I think the argument is that the negative aspects (primarily traffic) will impact Heights more than other parts of town, regardless of which neighborhood boundary the store falls within.

And I’ll say it again…there is no evidence that Walmart is less expensive than numerous other retailers already inside the loop. Yet folks continue to argue that Walmart is going to be a boon to low-income folks. This is simply no evidence of this. There are better ways to support low-income residents than bringing in a mid-priced, poorly ranked retailer into the area.

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.

Tenants may pay property taxes indirectly through their rent, but they do not have an investment in the property beyond their lease. Home ownership brings much greater responsibility and justifiably greater concern for the neighborhood vs. someone who can leave at the end of their lease.

[RedScare]

I'm sorry but that's faulty logic. Just because 90% haven't chimed in to the Facebook page doesn't mean they don't mind it. It means they haven't chimed in. In fact, unless you regularly visit HAIF, Swamplot, or one of the news websites on the day or two that it was publicised, there's probably a good chance you don't know about it. There aren't signs, banners, billboards, etc.

Until every single resident votes or somehow expresses their opinion one way or the other (or option 'C' of "I don't care either way), nobody can say "most are opposed" or "most are unopposed". Nobody knows. Toodles.

Thank you for buttressing my point.

[TheNiche]

Tenants may pay property taxes indirectly through their rent, but they do not have an investment in the property beyond their lease. Home ownership brings much greater responsibility and justifiably greater concern for the neighborhood vs. someone who can leave at the end of their lease.

In an ideal world...how would you weigh the input of various neighborhood or community stakeholders? Let's figure using votes per some particular metric, and allow for disqualifications due to inadequate income or education, having the wrong skin color, being too young, criminal history, citizenship status, etc.

I'll go first.

For each non-felon over 25 living in a given community* for over a month, they would be allowed one vote. People with associates degrees, bachelors degrees, masters degrees, or professional degrees (like law or medicine) would weigh more highly than people with high school or academic doctorate degrees, and people without a high school diploma or GED would have no weight. Employees working in a neighborhood would also be allowed a vote, however all employee votes would be pooled and weighted according to the individual employee's number of hours worked in the past year.

* VERY IMPORTANT: A community is a sizable collection of neighborhoods that function collectively, and should probably utilize a five-mile radius or something of that nature to determine who would be considered a stakeholder. This is so that a single neighborhood cannot dictate terms to the community at large.

[RedScare]

I think the argument is that the negative aspects (primarily traffic) will impact Heights more than other parts of town, regardless of which neighborhood boundary the store falls within.

And I’ll say it again…there is no evidence that Walmart is less expensive than numerous other retailers already inside the loop. Yet folks continue to argue that Walmart is going to be a boon to low-income folks. This is simply no evidence of this. There are better ways to support low-income residents than bringing in a mid-priced, poorly ranked retailer into the area.

Speaking of no evidence, the traffic argument is wholly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. With the possible exception of the intersection of N. Main, Cavalcade and Studewood, there are virtually no intersections within the Heights where one must wait more than one cycle of a stoplight to get through an intersection. Some posters use terms such as 'horrendous' and 'terrible' to describe traffic on Yale (a 4 lane street), yet traffic counts show Yale getting 1/3 the traffic that Studewood (a 3 lane street) gets, and virtually no one complains about Studewood. One poster even suggested that Studewood would be a BETTER location! A larger shopping center with a virtually identical sized Target and more smaller retailers does not appreciably increase traffic on Watson, a 2 lane road. There are parts of Houston where traffic approaches gridlock daily. The Heights experiences none of this. The traffic argument is a non-starter. Even the claim that Yale will suffer pass-through traffic from the north is a non-starter, given the fact that the Walmart at Crosstimbers will only be 1.5 miles away for residents north of 610, while the Yale store will be 3.5 to 4 miles away. Every traffic argument suggested by the opponents is either stretching the facts, or based on no facts at all.

The argument that there are better ways to help the poor is not justification to deny the right of a retailer to open a new store. In fact, proving some impact, through an increase in traffic, or some other claim, is not grounds to deny the right to build. I cannot force a neighbor not to build a 2 story home that blocks my view of downtown, even though that 2 story home severely impacts the enjoyment of my balcony. Likewise, you cannot deny Walmart the right to open a store simply because more traffic will travel on city owned streets. The impact must be severe, and the evidence is not there to suggest it, despite claims to the contrary that are based on guesses and wishes.

[TheNiche]

Even the claim that Yale will suffer pass-through traffic from the north is a non-starter, given the fact that the Walmart at Crosstimbers will only be 1.5 miles away for residents north of 610, while the Yale store will be 3.5 to 4 miles away.

Can you imagine how much more pass-through traffic would result from a Trader Joe's at that site given that there is no traffic sink to the north? A lot of stores other than Wal-Mart would induce significantly more pass-through traffic on Yale. Womeone concerned about traffic on Yale Street in the Heights should be welcoming Wal-Mart as the perfect store for this tract of land.

[RedScare]

Can you imagine how much more pass-through traffic would result from a Trader Joe's at that site given that there is no traffic sink to the north? A lot of stores other than Wal-Mart would induce significantly more pass-through traffic on Yale. Womeone concerned about traffic on Yale Street in the Heights should be welcoming Wal-Mart as the perfect store for this tract of land.

Exactly. The Crosstimbers store will limit traffic from the north. Silber will limit traffic from the west. This store will draw from the immediate neighborhoods, and from the south. Maybe the real concern is that the Montrose gays will be frighteningly close to the Heights.