COMMENT OF THE DAY: THE CREEPING SOCIALIST MENACE THAT LURKS WITHIN “It’s horrifying to think that a business would have to actually have to work with neighbors who will be living with their presence for a long, long time. The next thing you know, people will start thinking that as citizens they have some stake in the city they live in, and a right to participate and influence its future! What kind of crazy society would we be then?” [John, commenting on Mayor Parker to Walmart: Start Talking]
Sign up for the Newsletter
I love this comment.
I am so sick of the name calling. Just because I don’t share the same opinion as you doesn’t mean you can call me an elitist or classist. It’s my effin’ neighborhood and if I don’t want a damned Wal-Mart in my backyard then let me be! I’ll voice my opinion if I want just as you can voice your own opinions, just don’t be a third grader about it with your name calling!
Allsome comment.
West End neighborhood rocks! That is all I have to add.
So wait, telling other people what to do with their property and still other people how their consumer preferences should be constrained is just an opinion you should be left to argue unchallenged?
Stop Houston NIMBYs!
Firehat:
kheatherg made it clear that they own this neighborhood. We should all do their bidding and also stop criticizing.
————————–
It’s my effin’ neighborhood
NIMBY refers to a project with societal benefit, such as homeless shelters, sewage plants, etc, not to for-profit businesses. So to call Ashby Highrise protesters NIMBY is just ludicrous.
OK , let’s give some perspective to this….
You buy a property in an area of town that has no zoning and no deed restrictions, but you think that some governmental entity should begin dictating to a specific company or individual that you don’t like what they can or cannot do with the property they are purchasing or already own? How many things are wrong with that concept? I live in the West End as well and very few neighbors I know think it’s a bad thing a retailer such as Walmart is planning on building in a neighborhood that has absolutely no grocery store presence, other than Fiesta’s headquarters whose president has stated the land is too expensive for them to be able to make it work in the West End.
Lord knows the west end needs more microwavable pork rinds, and $10 12 packs of lonestar. MMMMM can just imagine gnawing on some phosphate/nitrate laden jerky right now, while sitting on a chair made in china by a 3 year old. WalMart would right class the place up.
Ok, bottom line and spoken from someone who rides their bike past that location at least once a week. There is nothing there, no houses, no nothing, yes that small working and reasonably well maintained apartments are there, there is virtually nothing else around, aside from that seedy bar on the bayou. WalMart will bring traffic sure, it will bring people that ride the Metro (god forbid public transportation!?!), and wil likely be a haven for the working class, and working poor, but aside from the traffic that’s really about the worst thing that will occur. Everyone reading this will continue to lilkely shop elesewhere, and eventually a balance wil be found. I personally loathe WalMart the epicenter of outsourcing, cheap over seas labor, and some of the worst benefits packages I’ve ever seen, and I’m neutral on the issue of labor unions. But if there is no real reason aside from traffic to oppose it, then what is your rationale for not wanting it? Is it traffic, or social stigmas?
HEB is interested and was outbid by Wally. You can have a grocery presence and everyone could be happy. Heck, you could sell local goods, pay fair wages and not compromise this ever-improving area. Wally just isn’t going to be the one to do that.
Amen to the OP, we may have moved into an area without zoning, but we pay taxes and deserve a say in what our neighborhood becomes
Oh good Lord people!
I’m not saying you can’t challenge my opinion. What I’m saying is everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so please respect mine and the opinions of others that are against Wal-Mart. It’s not the debating that I have a problem with (I actually like to know what other people’s thoughts are) it’s the name calling that’s the problem. Calling those of us who are against a Wal-Mart on Yale NIMBYs, elitists, classists, yuppies, etc doesn’t really do much to tell me why you disagree with me. I think the name-callers are the ones that think unless you have the same opinion as them, you are not allowed to have an opinion.
Bless ya kheatherg.
I really enjoy the intelligent debate and silly commentary around here, but the name callers need to head back to chron.com.
You buy a property in an area of town that has no zoning and no deed restrictions, but you think that some governmental entity should begin dictating to a specific company or individual that you don’t like what they can or cannot do with the property they are purchasing or already own?
_________________
But the mayor supports that concept which is why she appointed one of the two “co-chairs” of “Stop Ashby” to the neighborhood planning committee or whatever it’s called.
Unless you’re a big bucks developer who has contributed heavily to her campaigns through the years, well, you’re toast if other campaign contributors decide they don’t want your development. To hell with the City Charter.
She like the previous mayor likes to play big bad wolf. “I will huff and I will puff and I will blow that nasty old Wal-Mart down…”
And like the previous mayor she doesn’t care that the taxpayers have to foot the bill when the big bad wolf gets the city sued.
I think the Mayor is very pleased with the proposed Wal-Mart and the tax revenue it will bring to the city’s coffers. The work with the neighborhood rhetoric is throwing a bone to her Heights area supporters.
Full Disclosure – I was extremely disappointed when I discovered Wal-Mart was building a store at that location instead of HEB. Though I have nothing against Wal-Mart. I just really, really wanted an HEB close to my home.
While Wal-Mart isn’t my favorite place to shop, I’d be thrilled if they opened a Neighborhood Market in my neighborhood, just so I wouldn’t have to drive so far to go to a real grocery store. As far as stigma goes, in my area of town, a Wal-Mart would actually be considered a step UP.
If you buy property in the city, you have neighbors, and what you do with your property affects them. If they don’t like it, they will say so, and if they’re smart, they will work to put rules in place to limit what you can do. We already have a lot of those rules; just because we don’t call them “zoning” doesn’t mean much.
If you don’t want to deal with neighbors, buy property in the middle of a desert somewhere.
It’s funny, I don’t see the property rights crowd complaining about city rules that require people to set things back from the street even when it’s totally inappropriate (think Midtown) and I do hear property rights types complaining about parking concerns. None of which are, according to their ethos, their damn business.
Hypocrisy abounds.
“kheatherg made it clear that they own this neighborhood. We should all do their bidding and also stop criticizing.”
Go back and read the comment. It was, “I will voice my opinion and try to change what happens,” not “you must do my bidding.” Dont’ be such a drama mama.
“Go back and read the comment. It was, “I will voice my opinion and try to change what happens,†not “you must do my bidding.†Dont’ be such a drama mama.”
~~~~~~~
Yes, but in this case, “try(ing) to change what happens” IS THE SAME THING as demanding that others do their bidding.
I’m not calling anyone an elitist or racist or classist or anything but a whiny NIMBY who would, perhaps, be more at home in Portland or Austin. The road to these sorts of restrictions is the same road to ridiculously high costs of living.
Firehat: “Yes, but in this case, “try(ing) to change what happens†IS THE SAME THING as demanding that others do their bidding.”
Well, in that case, any citizen of a democratic society who tries to change what is happening – by speaking, by voting, by signing a petition – is “demanding that others do their bidding,” and apparently a very bad person. You’re lapsed into incoherence here.
It’s just really tedious to hear the same chorus of voices complaining that anybody who has a strong opinion about what happens in their community and speaks up about it is clearly some kind of controlling freak who doesn’t respect anyone else. As opposed to those who insist that no rules about development can ever change ever ever ever, which clearly isn’t controlling or an attempt to force one’s will on everyone else! It’s as thought at some moment in time we all gave up the right to change any rules or laws.
It’s idiocy. I can think of about a dozen things I’ve heard from anti-Walmart commenters that deserve strong criticism but the fact that they are putting opinions forth is NOT one of them.
It would be very refreshing to hear some viewpoints that were not these silly ad hominem attacks or endless repetition of “property rights” slogans that upon about ten seconds of consideration fall apart under their own illogic and inconsistencies. For example: land use rules are bad! Except, of course, Houston has them in endless supply. It’s just the ones that already exist are apparently above challenge: it’s okay to have parking requirements and setback rules and decide how many feet from a church an adult entertainment business must be, but if you question Wal-Mart, you’re a meddler who doesn’t respect property rights! And because property rights are sacrosanct, you should buy a home with deed restrictions, because there, there are rules about what you can do with your property, which is great, because people telling you what to do with your property is bad!
Seriously – do you guys ever listen to yourselves?
People are bringing up things like the Ashby Highrise fight as an example of a bad outcome. I agree but I think it’s also an inevitable, utterly Houstonian thing – because we are loath to take any kind of consistent approach to development. And so, we leave it to the market, the market comes up with something that enriches a developer while (in the eyes of neighbors, whether they’re right or not) devaluing the neighboring area, and people resort to getting any kind of help they can – even if it starts to look like political favors and the like.
It’s an inevitable results of refusing to have reasonable rules and restrictions. Those rules and restrictions reduce uncertainty, which is a very good thing. If you’re going to pillory everyone who objects to anything as some kind of crazed anti-property-rights fool, expect a lot more of these battles, with all kinds of unpredictable results.
Is that really what anybody wants?
People who seek to harness the coercive power of the state to enforce their own tastes and preferences on others are NOT exercising legitimate democratic rights. Is that logical enough?
That being said, and in fairness, I’d hate to have a WalMart in my neighborhood. But I would not ask the government to enforce my tastes on others.
Monetarily, the city loses money with this Walmart on this property. For starters, all the decreased residential property values around the area in the long run and especially pre-maturely ending the upswing in residential value in this area. And not to mention, the upside of this property and surrounding commercial properties for a lot more property tax than merely a Walmart would bring. Walmart effectively ends any mixed use development nearby in favpr of further strip malls.
Irfan, In the short term residential property values in the area will decrease because of the number of poorly constructed townhomes. In the long term the property values will increase due to the proximity to downtown/Memorial Park, etc.
Also, how is it Wal-Mart “effectively ends any mixed use development nearby”? What other group (investors/company) were attempting to obtain the land for mixed use development. Are you referring to HEB?
Further, what would prevent future mixed use development in the area surrounding the proposed Wal-Mart?
From firehat:
“People who seek to harness the coercive power of the state to enforce their own tastes and preferences on others are NOT exercising legitimate democratic rights. Is that logical enough?”
“That being said, and in fairness, I’d hate to have a WalMart in my neighborhood. But I would not ask the government to enforce my tastes on others.”
—————-
True. Just have some consistent hurdles. Examples might be:
-must have traffic impacts below some threshold
-must not increase net runoff to Buffalo Bayou
-must not have noise impacts above XX decibels 50 ft. from the project property line or at the nearest residence, whichever is closer
-must not increase concentrations of air pollutants above the NAAQS for an existing attainment area
-must match surrounding buildings (for deed-restricted areas).
See, these are standardized rules. Every business would have to follow them. Any other rules that a resident of Houston proposes and are written into law would have to be followed too.Voicing your opinion against Ashby or against Wal-Mart, etc., not pointing to a specific rule that the project would violate, and then expecting the government to do something about it is mob rule, not democracy.
If you think the rules are insufficient, propose a rule for the Houston area — and HURRY to get it in place before construction begins. But don’t make it some BS carve-out rule (which is very popular in the U.S. Congress right now) such as “Any business with annual worldwide revenues greater than $100 billion shall …”, because that’s not true democracy either. If it’s bad for a big business to create parking overflow into neighborhoods, for example, then it is also bad for a “mom-and-pop” to do the same, and they should get no exceptions in the law.
Because I haven’t heard a coherent argument against Wal-Mart for this location, so I can’t guess which impacts they will be against, I don’t think that it necessarily requires a rewrite of development rules, or zoning, or planning. Can’t we just say that a project can’t create X,Y,Z impacts and be done with it?
Consistent rules, not city-wide master plans.
@ firehat
You are naive if you don’t think that developers and large corporations aren’t already using the ‘coercive’ power of generous campaign contributions to influence government’s treatment of them. In fact, it is the status quo. Thus, residents and community groups are entirely within their rights to use whatever legal means are at their disposal to pressure government to protect their interests.
“People who seek to harness the coercive power of the state to enforce their own tastes and preferences on others are NOT exercising legitimate democratic rights. Is that logical enough?”
Not even a little!
From John:
“People who seek to harness the coercive power of the state to enforce their own tastes and preferences on others are NOT exercising legitimate democratic rights. Is that logical enough?â€
——-
“Not even a little!”
————————–
How about when they attempt to get the government to do so based not on a rule or regulation, but on their personal preferences alone? Does that qualify as undemocratic for you?
“How about when they attempt to get the government to do so based not on a rule or regulation, but on their personal preferences alone? Does that qualify as undemocratic for you?”
Not really. But I don’t think it’s good. I think it’s exactly what one should expect when rules and regulations do not address public concerns – people get desperate and look for any kind of help.
Those of you arguing against the kinds of sensible regulations that cities all over the world have had for a long time are basically arguing for that kind of crap, because you’re insisting on a kind of wild west approach to development.
If you don’t like it you should be encouraging a vigorous public debate about what regulations are sensible and balance economic development against public desire for protection of less tangible attributes a community – a desire which clearly exists, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion- and enactment of those regulations into law.
Instead we get lots of posing and name calling. So… you’re getting a sadly predictable result. And defending the conditions that lead to the result, while complaining about the result.
As Steve Jobs might say, “Don’t hold it that way.” :)