Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[The Pragmatist]

Only if it is a Lifetime Fitness

I think a multi level apartment complex would have to be added to make everyone happy.

You both are right. How could I be so naïve?

[s3mh]

This Tysons Corner Walmart reminded me of this thread. Maybe if Walmart adds a fitness center on top, everything will be OK.

I am both familiar with Tysons Corner and this project. This Walmart will only be 79,000 sq ft versus a 152,000 sq ft supercenter for Yale St. The area in Tysons Corner where the development is planned is heavily commercial, with lots of shopping centers on a six lane road (Leesburgright Pike) near the highway.

The Ainbinder development was originally supposed to be a mixed use development. When the economy tanked, they scrapped those plans and went with a strip mall with a retail/grocery anchor. Of course, this begs the question of how they can do a mixed use development in Tysons Corner but not Houston?

[samagon]

Of course, this begs the question of how they can do a mixed use development in Tysons Corner but not Houston?

You don't know the answer to this?

do some research on the property value of land in tysons corner vs property value of land between i-10 and washington around yale.

do some research on the number of people who are estimated per day to go to tysons corner with the exclusive purpose of shopping. do the same for the area between i-10 and washington around yale.

I haven't done any research myself (outside of some quick wikipedia searches for tysons corner), and don't care to, but I'll bet you a hotdog and a half pitcher of beer (I will be drinking half of it) at the moon tower inn that the land prices are insanely higher around tysons corner than they are for land around that area of Houston, and that the density of people that move through tysons corner on a daily basis is much higher than that of the area where the walmart will be going in down near the heights.

[s3mh]

You don't know the answer to this?

do some research on the property value of land in tysons corner vs property value of land between i-10 and washington around yale.

do some research on the number of people who are estimated per day to go to tysons corner with the exclusive purpose of shopping. do the same for the area between i-10 and washington around yale.

I haven't done any research myself (outside of some quick wikipedia searches for tysons corner), and don't care to, but I'll bet you a hotdog and a half pitcher of beer (I will be drinking half of it) at the moon tower inn that the land prices are insanely higher around tysons corner than they are for land around that area of Houston, and that the density of people that move through tysons corner on a daily basis is much higher than that of the area where the walmart will be going in down near the heights.

Here we go again. You get to speculate all you want but get to call me out every time I cannot readily provide citation to sources for anything I say. Whatever.

So, your logic is that you should put a smaller Walmart in an area with higher density of shopping traffic and one twice the size in an area that has far less traffic?

With the I-10 feeder access, you could dump as many cars down Yale St. as get dumped down Leesburg in Tysons Corner. No one was going out to I-10 and Beltway 8 to shop. But, that didn't stop City Centre. Traffic at Kirby and Westheimer is a fraction of Tysons Corner traffic around that proposed development. But that didn't stop West Ave.

And for your land price argument, lower land price would help a developer do mixed use. Lower cost=less risk.

There is no reason the Yale St parcel couldn't have been developed into a mixed use development. Credit markets are accessible again and plenty of other mixed use projects are rolling along. The whole foods/galleria mixed-use development is a go. West Ave is already planning an expansion, as is the Post Oak mixed use on W Gray in midtown. The High Street mixed use development on Westheimer is back on the table. But, the Heights gets a strip mall with a walmart.

[MOpens]

There is no reason the Yale St parcel couldn't have been developed into a mixed use development. Credit markets are accessible again and plenty of other mixed use projects are rolling along. The whole foods/galleria mixed-use development is a go. West Ave is already planning an expansion, as is the Post Oak mixed use on W Gray in midtown. The High Street mixed use development on Westheimer is back on the table. But, the Heights gets a strip mall with a walmart.

Why can't the reason be that there is no economic incentive? I know very little about Tysons Corner, and the value I place on information from Wikipedia is conservatively low (but growing!), but the article there makes a very compelling reason for a mixed-use development: significant number of commuters into Tysons Corner (80K above the number of residents), which creates significant traffic issues that can be addressed through the development of additional housing in Tysons Corner. Those facts all add up to DEMAND for a mixed-use development. Where is the demand (economic demand, not your desire) for the same on Yale Street? Also, it's great that you point to other examples of mixed-use developments in Houston - some of which I think are great - but why does anyone other than the owner/developer of the Yale Street site get to decide whether mixed-use is right for Yale Street? I hope all of the examples you cited succeed, but maybe some will not, and that is a risk for the owner/developer to decide whether to accept, not you.

[samagon]

Why can't the reason be that there is no economic incentive? I know very little about Tysons Corner, and the value I place on information from Wikipedia is conservatively low (but growing!), but the article there makes a very compelling reason for a mixed-use development: significant number of commuters into Tysons Corner (80K above the number of residents), which creates significant traffic issues that can be addressed through the development of additional housing in Tysons Corner. Those facts all add up to DEMAND for a mixed-use development. Where is the demand (economic demand, not your desire) for the same on Yale Street? Also, it's great that you point to other examples of mixed-use developments in Houston - some of which I think are great - but why does anyone other than the owner/developer of the Yale Street site get to decide whether mixed-use is right for Yale Street? I hope all of the examples you cited succeed, but maybe some will not, and that is a risk for the owner/developer to decide whether to accept, not you.

this was exactly what I was getting at. thx.

Here we go again. You get to speculate all you want but get to call me out every time I cannot readily provide citation to sources for anything I say. Whatever.

I suppose that I could make references to walmarts that are being built in areas that no one here has any contextual information about, and make claims about it that support what I want without making an citation to reference as well then?

I never stated that what I wrote was fact, just that I offered you a hotdog and beer to show me that there is relevance between the two. since you didn't I won't be buying you a hotdog and beer, you still can do it though, the offer isn't being pulled off the table!

Edited June 30, 2011 by samagon

[htownproud]

im very late to the game, but i hadn't driven down yale in years (i live on the other side of buffalo bayou). i did this morning. this area is currently so ugly that anything here--absolutely anything--would be better (i didn't relealize land west of downtown and inside the loop was still this bad). the road is also awful (close to Shepperd awful), so to get a private company to help with the road to boot is a great deal.

would it have been nicer to be mixed use, of course. but this developement should be a very welcome change for everyone in that area .

[CHiPs]

im very late to the game, but i hadn't driven down yale in years (i live on the other side of buffalo bayou). i did this morning. this area is currently so ugly that anything here--absolutely anything--would be better (i didn't relealize land west of downtown and inside the loop was still this bad). the road is also awful (close to Shepperd awful), so to get a private company to help with the road to boot is a great deal.

would it have been nicer to be mixed use, of course. but this developement should be a very welcome change for everyone in that area .

Most of Houston is ugly. I love it here.

[s3mh]

im very late to the game, but i hadn't driven down yale in years (i live on the other side of buffalo bayou). i did this morning. this area is currently so ugly that anything here--absolutely anything--would be better (i didn't relealize land west of downtown and inside the loop was still this bad). the road is also awful (close to Shepperd awful), so to get a private company to help with the road to boot is a great deal.

would it have been nicer to be mixed use, of course. but this developement should be a very welcome change for everyone in that area .

Tax payers are paying for the road improvements via a tax reimbursement deal between the developer and the City. The developer said they could afford to make the road improvements and did not need the tax reimbursement deal, but got one anyway. So, the reality is that tax payers are helping the developer to the tune of 6 million, not the other way around.

And the Heights and West End aren't so desparate for development that we should be happy to see our neighborhood turned into FM 1960 Jr. The Heights is already scarred with lots of "anything would be better" development. The short sighted mini-strip centers and 1970s garden style apartment complexes were undoubtedly hailed at the time as a good thing for the neighborhood in that they were replacing vacant lots or abandonned buildings. But, we are now stuck with them and would have been much better off had they never been built. I suspect in 10-20 years, someone will post on a message board about how they have not been down Yale St. in years and cannot believe how terrible it is over my the Walmart and how anything would be better than that strip mall.

[RedScare]

Explain to me why I care what the opinion is of a surburbanite who drives into town once in 20 years?

Right, I don't.

[samagon]

Tax payers are paying for the road improvements via a tax reimbursement deal between the developer and the City. The developer said they could afford to make the road improvements and did not need the tax reimbursement deal, but got one anyway. So, the reality is that tax payers are helping the developer to the tune of 6 million, not the other way around.

so direct your hatred and anger at MAP and the people who approached the dev with the idea.

Would the fact that taxes are paying for the (needed) road improvements suck any less if it weren't a walmart?

[RedScare]

Last time I checked, taxes are used to build and repair roads. That's what taxpayers do, they pay taxes for road improvements.

Interestingly, Walmarts pay taxes at a higher rate than owners of homes, and especially owners of historic homes, both of whom get exemptions. Someone has to pick up the slack for all the slack these deadbeats are given. We should be thanking Walmart for paying the taxes we will not pay, not villifying them.

[s3mh]

so direct your hatred and anger at MAP and the people who approached the dev with the idea.

Would the fact that taxes are paying for the (needed) road improvements suck any less if it weren't a walmart?

I hate MAP and the clowns in the econ development office who cooked up this 380 agreement. There.

But, I will not be silent when someone praises Walmart or the developer for doing the deal. Obviously, Walmart and the developer would be stupid not to take the free money. But that doesn't make it right. There was no money in the CIF for any of the needed improvements. Without the 380 agreement, the developer would either have to pay for the improvements or wait until CIF funds became available. The developer said they did not need the 380 agreement and could proceed with out it. To hail them and Walmart as doing some public service by taking 6 mil they do not need is wrong.

[s3mh]

Last time I checked, taxes are used to build and repair roads. That's what taxpayers do, they pay taxes for road improvements.

Interestingly, Walmarts pay taxes at a higher rate than owners of homes, and especially owners of historic homes, both of whom get exemptions. Someone has to pick up the slack for all the slack these deadbeats are given. We should be thanking Walmart for paying the taxes we will not pay, not villifying them.

As mentioned above, when there are no CIF funds or if the infrastructure improvements exclusively benefit the developer, the developer has to pay for the improvements. It happens all the time.

Owners of historic homes do not get tax exemptions. There is an abatement program available for certain rennovations. But, otherwise, if you buy a house in a historic district, you pay the same tax rate as everyone else.

Everyone gets taxed at the same rate. Walmart does not get the benefit of the homestead exemption. But they certainly should pay more taxes (due to no homestead limits, not a higher tax rate) as they are a far greater consumer and beneficiary of public services and funds than the average resident. Many of their employees need public assistance to make ends meet due to being paid low wages and having insufficient hours. Many of their employees are on medicaid. They need the police on almost a daily basis. Their customers pay for groceries and consumer goods with WIC, welfare and SS checks.

[samagon]

I hate MAP and the clowns in the econ development office who cooked up this 380 agreement. There.

But, I will not be silent when someone praises Walmart or the developer for doing the deal. Obviously, Walmart and the developer would be stupid not to take the free money. But that doesn't make it right. There was no money in the CIF for any of the needed improvements. Without the 380 agreement, the developer would either have to pay for the improvements or wait until CIF funds became available. The developer said they did not need the 380 agreement and could proceed with out it. To hail them and Walmart as doing some public service by taking 6 mil they do not need is wrong.

Glad that you agree that the people to be angry with are in city hall, and that Walmart (or any landowner given the same choice as they were) were just taking advantage of the offer on the table.

I think you're right, if someone praises walmart for making the great job they did crafting the 380 agreement, they're wrong, and why not point that out, because as you said, they really didn't need it, or want it until it was on the table. It's hard to not discuss the agreement though because it's all part of the deal, but by the same token, you can't criminalize walmart for entering the 380 agreement that the city offered.

Everyone gets taxed at the same rate.

I know certain areas get taxed more, or less based on school district they are in, and a few other things, but I had always assumed residential was taxed differently than commercial even in the same area? Interesting to know we get taxed the same.

Edited July 1, 2011 by samagon

[htownproud]

Redscare,

"Last time I checked," the other side of Buffalo Bayou indicates Montrose, not Katy. Until recently, there has been no reason to go north of Allen Parkway. Frankly, the Walmart will be a draw for those of us in Montrose to get out more and enjoy your neck of the woods.

Clearly I misunderstood who was paying for the new roads, although regardless, Yale is in desperate need to be re-done.

[Ross]

As mentioned above, when there are no CIF funds or if the infrastructure improvements exclusively benefit the developer, the developer has to pay for the improvements. It happens all the time.

Owners of historic homes do not get tax exemptions. There is an abatement program available for certain rennovations. But, otherwise, if you buy a house in a historic district, you pay the same tax rate as everyone else.

Everyone gets taxed at the same rate. Walmart does not get the benefit of the homestead exemption. But they certainly should pay more taxes (due to no homestead limits, not a higher tax rate) as they are a far greater consumer and beneficiary of public services and funds than the average resident. Many of their employees need public assistance to make ends meet due to being paid low wages and having insufficient hours. Many of their employees are on medicaid. They need the police on almost a daily basis. Their customers pay for groceries and consumer goods with WIC, welfare and SS checks.

Historic homes get a homestead exemption, WalMart doesn't. Your "historic" home therefore pays less proportionate tax than WalMart.

None of the services you mention come from property taxes. Don't be disingenuous.

The infrastructure improvements won't benefit only the developer. Anyone can drive on the improved streets.

The 380 agreements don't cost the City any taxes they are currently collecting.

[RedScare]

Clearly I misunderstood who was paying for the new roads, although regardless, Yale is in desperate need to be re-done.

You are correct that Yale is in horrible shape and needs to be redone. The 380 agreement allows for this to occur sooner. However, some posters on this board seem to be offended that a non-tax producing property will soon be producing hundreds of thousands of tax dollars per year. Of course, this same poster supported the City's passage of a historic ordinance that will limit the amount of taxes produced by Heights residents by both limiting the renovations of those existing homes and preventing new construction. One must wonder how anything will get paid for in this city if that poster succeeds in limiting all tax producing properties.

[barracuda]

Historic homes get a homestead exemption, WalMart doesn't. Your "historic" home therefore pays less proportionate tax than WalMart.

Maybe owners of historic homes should get more tax exemptions beyond the standard homestead exemption. After all, we are now the stewards of homes that can only be modified with the City's HAHC approval, and we pay more to maintain and update our homes to adhere to these rules.

As far as paying less proportionate tax than Walmart, how do you compare a 152,000 retailer to a single family home? The tax rate does not really take into account the return on investment each receives from city resources for things like infrastructure and public assistance. Walmart encourages employees to draw from public assistance to compensate for the low pay and meager benefits they receive. Their "low" prices are achieved through fancy management that offsets the cost by relying on others as much as possible. As taxpayers, s3mh and others have a right to complain about this and oppose this project.

If anything, those living in historic homes in the Heights are subsidizing the property tax system. The houses are appraised higher per square foot than many other parts of town, even as they need more attention and cost to maintain. The majority of homeowners, at least in my neighborhood, do not have kids attending HISD. And most Heights homeowners are probably not relying on public assistance to make ends meet; otherwise those folks would be finding less expensive areas to live. And I'm not complaining about the unfairness of the tax system when it comes to citizens, but it does bother me when corporations or developments of a certain size suddenly become outliers of the tax system that the rest of us have to subsidize.

[RedScare]

If anything, those living in historic homes in the Heights are subsidizing the property tax system. The houses are appraised higher per square foot than many other parts of town, even as they need more attention and cost to maintain. The majority of homeowners, at least in my neighborhood, do not have kids attending HISD. And most Heights homeowners are probably not relying on public assistance to make ends meet; otherwise those folks would be finding less expensive areas to live. And I'm not complaining about the unfairness of the tax system when it comes to citizens, but it does bother me when corporations or developments of a certain size suddenly become outliers of the tax system that the rest of us have to subsidize.

Not really. My land accounts for nearly 75% of my appraised value. My new garage is appraised at nearly the value of my entire house. The house itself accounts for only 15% of my appraised value, netting the City $221. By comparison, my neighbor's new house comprises 80% of the appraised value compared to the land. The City nets $1880 annually from his new construction, to my $221. The new Walmart at Northline Mall paid $52,355 in City property taxes alone last year, $206,900 total. And, that one is in the least desirable area. The Silber and Yale locations will likely pay more.

No, my "historic" house is not subsidizing anything. Walmart is.

[Ross]

Maybe owners of historic homes should get more tax exemptions beyond the standard homestead exemption. After all, we are now the stewards of homes that can only be modified with the City's HAHC approval, and we pay more to maintain and update our homes to adhere to these rules.

Your home is no more historic, and no more important, than my generic 1952 Timbergrove ranch. It's just older. Of course, for those stupid enough to support the concept of "historic" districts, karma will appear at the suitable moment.

As far as paying less proportionate tax than Walmart, how do you compare a 152,000 retailer to a single family home? The tax rate does not really take into account the return on investment each receives from city resources for things like infrastructure and public assistance. Walmart encourages employees to draw from public assistance to compensate for the low pay and meager benefits they receive. Their "low" prices are achieved through fancy management that offsets the cost by relying on others as much as possible. As taxpayers, s3mh and others have a right to complain about this and oppose this project.

WalMart isn't receiving public assistance. in fact, the City is going to be able to make necessary infrastructure improvements ahead of schedule due to the generosity of the developer in funding those improvements. I really don't understand the hatred for WalMart. It's a business. Don't like them, don't shop there. Perhaps it's jealousy that someone else is more successful. in any case, WalMart has as much right to operate as anyone else.

If anything, those living in historic homes in the Heights are subsidizing the property tax system. The houses are appraised higher per square foot than many other parts of town, even as they need more attention and cost to maintain. The majority of homeowners, at least in my neighborhood, do not have kids attending HISD. And most Heights homeowners are probably not relying on public assistance to make ends meet; otherwise those folks would be finding less expensive areas to live. And I'm not complaining about the unfairness of the tax system when it comes to citizens, but it does bother me when corporations or developments of a certain size suddenly become outliers of the tax system that the rest of us have to subsidize.

You aren't subsidizing WalMart. They are subsidizing you.

[barracuda]

Not really. My land accounts for nearly 75% of my appraised value. My new garage is appraised at nearly the value of my entire house. The house itself accounts for only 15% of my appraised value, netting the City $221. By comparison, my neighbor's new house comprises 80% of the appraised value compared to the land. The City nets $1880 annually from his new construction, to my $221. The new Walmart at Northline Mall paid $52,355 in City property taxes alone last year, $206,900 total. And, that one is in the least desirable area. The Silber and Yale locations will likely pay more.

No, my "historic" house is not subsidizing anything. Walmart is.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure how one can accurately compare the overall impact to the tax system between a retail supercenter and a single family home. Each places different demands on infrastructure and services. But if we must, how about comparing the real taxes paid on square foot of property? By that method, I pay $1.34 per square foot for my 5000 square foot lot (with homestead exemption). For my rental property, I pay $2.98/sq. ft.

The Dunvale Super Walmart pays $0.61 per square foot of land for their 889,593 sq. ft. property, and the S Post Oak regular Walmart pays even less, $0.40/sq. ft. So, I am paying as much as 7x the amount of property taxes relative to property size compared to an existing Walmart.

And consider that appraisals for supercenters are heavily weighted towards the land value. For the Dunvale location, it's 83% for land vs. 17% for the improvements. In comparison, my Heights property appraisal value is weighted 37% for land and 63% for improvements. So, essentially a house on a 5000 square foot Heights lot is more valuable per square foot than a Walmart parking lot or even the store itself.

[barracuda]

Your home is no more historic, and no more important, than my generic 1952 Timbergrove ranch. It's just older. Of course, for those stupid enough to support the concept of "historic" districts, karma will appear at the suitable moment.

That's a subjective opinion. According to the city, it is historic. Regardless, I was mostly joking about getting additional tax abatement from the city. Mostly.

WalMart isn't receiving public assistance. in fact, the City is going to be able to make necessary infrastructure improvements ahead of schedule due to the generosity of the developer in funding those improvements. I really don't understand the hatred for WalMart. It's a business. Don't like them, don't shop there. Perhaps it's jealousy that someone else is more successful. in any case, WalMart has as much right to operate as anyone else.

You didn't read the comment. I didn't write that Walmart receives public assistance. But many of their employees do. And I'd rather not pay more taxes to compensate for companies like Walmart that don't pay closer to a living wage, all while they're raking in $16B in annual profits. Employees should not have to depend on public assistance programs like Medicaid and food stamps to survive.

You aren't subsidizing WalMart. They are subsidizing you.

See my previous post and the above comment.

[RedScare]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure how one can accurately compare the overall impact to the tax system between a retail supercenter and a single family home.

Remember, we only looked at property taxes. With sales and inventory taxes, Walmart pays $750,000 or more a year in taxes to the city, county and state.

Another, very simple way to guage what is more valuable to the taxing authorities is to look at the City of Houston's annexation policies. They routinely annex commercial areas, while leaving the residential areas unincorporated. The City recently let the Woodlands buy its way out of the ETJ, even though the City had no intention of ever annexing the residents. Why? Commercial establishments pay higher tax rates, more for their water, pay for their own waste removal, and provide their own security. They do not waste city council's time on everything from potholes to tax revenue killing historic districts. They simply make money and pay taxes. The city likes that. No whiny, pissy residents. Just tax revenue.

If you really think that it is debatable who subsidizes who, you need to study the budgets and appraisals closer. It is not even close.

[RedScare]

And consider that appraisals for supercenters are heavily weighted towards the land value. For the Dunvale location, it's 83% for land vs. 17% for the improvements. In comparison, my Heights property appraisal value is weighted 37% for land and 63% for improvements. So, essentially a house on a 5000 square foot Heights lot is more valuable per square foot than a Walmart parking lot or even the store itself.

As I stated earlier, my land accounts for 73% of my appraisal. Either you live in new construction, or you were able to drastically alter your house prior to the historic district designation. It would be virtually impossible for my house to achieve even 50% parity with my land under the new ordinance.

[barracuda]

Remember, we only looked at property taxes. With sales and inventory taxes, Walmart pays $750,000 or more a year in taxes to the city, county and state.

Another, very simple way to guage what is more valuable to the taxing authorities is to look at the City of Houston's annexation policies. They routinely annex commercial areas, while leaving the residential areas unincorporated. The City recently let the Woodlands buy its way out of the ETJ, even though the City had no intention of ever annexing the residents. Why? Commercial establishments pay higher tax rates, more for their water, pay for their own waste removal, and provide their own security. They do not waste city council's time on everything from potholes to tax revenue killing historic districts. They simply make money and pay taxes. The city likes that. No whiny, pissy residents. Just tax revenue.

If you really think that it is debatable who subsidizes who, you need to study the budgets and appraisals closer. It is not even close.

I would argue that it's the consumers who pay sales taxes, with the retailer acting as the facilitator. And a new store in an established market like ours will primarily take revenue away from other retailers, so there is not much of a net increase in sales tax revenue. It takes things like population growth, rising salaries, and increased tourism to add real revenue to the area's retail base, not just adding more redundant retailers that borrow customers from one another.

I think the reason the city likes to annex commercial areas is for simplicity and lower risk. The city gains a significant chunk of revenue by dealing with small number property owners who own large tracts of taxable real estate in adjacent areas. Residential, by comparison, is composed of many smaller plots, and of course as you said, noisy homeowners are much more of a hassle to work with, and worse yet, they are voters who could pose a threat to those in office if annexation is not desired.

I do agree that this is more complicated than looking at property tax bills. More than anything, it doesn't account for the impact on public assistance from Walmart employees. Less than half of Walmart employees receive healthcare through their employer, and according to this source, Walmart employees cost taxpayer money for a variety of government programs, at an average cost of $420,750 to taxpayers per store. Those may be primarily federal programs, but regardless of the government entity they are drawing from, it is hard for me to believe that Walmart is subsidizing the public with the massive amount of evidence contradicting this claim.

Edited July 4, 2011 by barracuda

[barracuda]

As I stated earlier, my land accounts for 73% of my appraisal. Either you live in new construction, or you were able to drastically alter your house prior to the historic district designation. It would be virtually impossible for my house to achieve even 50% parity with my land under the new ordinance.

My house was considerably altered in the 30's or 40's with an addition, but most of the improvement value ratio increase is due to a large renovation a few years ago, combined with the smallish lot. Unfortunately, HCAD thinks the renovation added 23% to the value, even though the size only went up 200 sq. ft.

[Ross]

I would argue that it's the consumers who pay sales taxes, with the retailer acting as the facilitator. And a new store in an established market like ours will primarily take revenue away from other retailers, so there is not much of a net increase in sales tax revenue. It takes things like population growth, rising salaries, and increased tourism to add real revenue to the area's retail base, not just adding more redundant retailers that borrow customers from one another.

I think the reason the city likes to annex commercial areas is for simplicity and lower risk. The city gains a significant chunk of revenue by dealing with small number property owners who own large tracts of taxable real estate in adjacent areas. Residential, by comparison, is composed of many smaller plots, and of course as you said, noisy homeowners are much more of a hassle to work with, and worse yet, they are voters who could pose a threat to those in office if annexation is not desired.

I do agree that this is more complicated than looking at property tax bills. More than anything, it doesn't account for the impact on public assistance from Walmart employees. Less than half of Walmart employees receive healthcare through their employer, and according to this source, Walmart employees cost taxpayer money for a variety of government programs, at an average cost of $420,750 to taxpayers per store. Those may be primarily federal programs, but regardless of the government entity they are drawing from, it is hard for me to believe that Walmart is subsidizing the public with the massive amount of evidence contradicting this claim.

What would be the plight of the workers if they weren't working at WalMart? Would they be using even more public assistance? Could it be that they woek at WalMart because it's the best job they can find? If WalMart paid higher wages and more benefits, would the workers attracted be of a higher caliber, thus leaving the current employees back on the dole?

[lockmat]

So I have not been paying attention to this thread at all and the last two pages are basically nothing....has this thing broken ground yet?

[samagon]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure how one can accurately compare the overall impact to the tax system between a retail supercenter and a single family home. Each places different demands on infrastructure and services. But if we must, how about comparing the real taxes paid on square foot of property? By that method, I pay $1.34 per square foot for my 5000 square foot lot (with homestead exemption). For my rental property, I pay $2.98/sq. ft.

The Dunvale Super Walmart pays $0.61 per square foot of land for their 889,593 sq. ft. property, and the S Post Oak regular Walmart pays even less, $0.40/sq. ft. So, I am paying as much as 7x the amount of property taxes relative to property size compared to an existing Walmart.

And consider that appraisals for supercenters are heavily weighted towards the land value. For the Dunvale location, it's 83% for land vs. 17% for the improvements. In comparison, my Heights property appraisal value is weighted 37% for land and 63% for improvements. So, essentially a house on a 5000 square foot Heights lot is more valuable per square foot than a Walmart parking lot or even the store itself.

I appreciate you are disappointed that different areas of Houston pay different property tax rates, and that value of the land and improvements on the land per square foot are different, you should point some anger my way too, cause I pay right at about $0.50 per square foot, that's a discussion for a different day though.

I think judgement should be held on this comparison until the walmart is built and they pay some property taxes for that location, or maybe you can find someones house close to the dunvale, or SPO walmart for a valid comparison of tax rates for the area, and value of the property per square foot, rather than two very different areas of Houston. heh, unless maybe you're saying that Dunvale and SPO are the same as the Heights? In which case, you shouldn't be surprised they are building a walmart.