Need Another Reason to Hate Wal-Mart and Lincoln Property? 

Early voting begins on Tuesday, February 19.

You're right, thanks. I'll correct that.

by not having the polling there it will cut down on a lot of traffic and we all know the neighborhood is very sensitive about traffic. this is positive for the folks.

Are you kidding? You're kidding, right? Because of WM/Lincoln construction, an early voting site is moved two blocks west. What an outrage! TWO BLOCKS?!

Who should we be mad at for the HEB/tiny Washington Mutual Bank Branch move? Should we be mad at WM or Lincoln for that too?

I'm very accepting of this move if it means they're finally building the west side of the mall/WM.

I thought the west side wasn't a mall at all. It's just one big ass bigbox and it's innate unique beauty they offerred us is blocked by a huge ass parking garage in front of it.

Seems you thought wrong.

THIS ARTICLE is another reason to hate Lee Nichols.

If you go to:

http://www.walmart-northcross.com/files/site_plan.gif

and look, it seems Jackie might be mistaken. the west side is a stand alone surpersized wal-mart, and in front of it is a parking garage (When looking at it from Anderson).

Is there better info out there Jackie?

"But I'd be more accepting if Lincoln had proposed a good redevelopment for my neighborhood instead of a Wal-Mart."

What would "good" redevelopment consist of? A business that exploits its workers in a way that provides a more aesthetically pleasing shopping experience for you? You'd rather have the shiny happy exploited BookPeople workers than the surly, grumpy exploited Wal-Mart workers?

Actually, it doesn't block then entire Wal-Mart.

Would you rather have a convenient, monitored (and possibly guarded, if RG4N gets their priorities straight) parking garage, or a huge, unattractive, sparsely guarded, just asking for crime parking lot (e.g. Parmer/I-35, 620/183, 620/2222 WM)? I wouldn't complain about something that could drastically reduce both WalMart and Northcross crime.

Think about it, if you get rid of the parking garage, that space would instead be a flat, bag-a$$, dangerous parking lot. I haven't done extensive research, so I wont say it's never happened, but Google "WalMart parking crime. "

I see 10 pages of WM parking LOT crimes, 0 WM parking GARAGE crimes. Hmmm...

RG4N and Allandale are very concerned with crime, especially when paired with WM, so the parking garage could be an enormous improvement to Wal-Mart security in general, plus, the mall security that was previously there.

Hopefully when RG4N is done spending tax payer's and ANA's money on frivolous lawsuits and appeals, our tax $/neighborhood associations dollars could be spent on extra security to really ensure the safety of visitors and neighbors.

For example:

Make sure the camera's in the garage will work AND someone will always be watching the feeds, at least during store hours. Make sure the garage is always lit, even after hours. Make sure there will be at least 1 security guard on duty in the garage, 1 in the parking lot. Maybe try to get them to close the top level after a certain time.

Hell, even if RG4N/ANA spends more $$ on a lawsuit fighting for more effective/reliable security (since they probably believe WM should pay for the extensive security), other than how many trees will be cut down, that would finally be a step in the right direction for responsible growth for Nothcross.

Just a thought...

By "bag-a$$," I meant BIG-a$$.

Though those bag-a$$ parking lots are something to worry about...

The ANA won't be spending more $$ on another lawsuit, or much of anything else for that matter. They're insolvent.

Right now they're mainly trying to sucker people into bailing them out of their insolvency before they can't postpone bankruptcy any longer.

(they're doing this by creating the misimpression that donations will go to new activities or actions rather than simply bailing out the fiduciary breaches of the ANA board)

"I see 10 pages of WM parking LOT crimes, 0 WM parking GARAGE crimes. Hmmm... "

the reason you don't see parking garage crime reports at wal-marts is simple: THERE ARE NO WAL-MART PARKING GARAGES.

I suppose this whole garage concept will completely cure the crime issue.

So we have a big super safe Wal-Mart parking garage since there is ZERO crime in them, and I guess that's good because that's what we all will be looking at when we whizz by on our underutilized road and applaud Wal-Marts transparent approval process.

P.S.....

Why in gods name if this is such an open and shut case does the city spend so many hundreds of thousands of dollars

that could be spent on our schools and infrastructure?

Think about it. I think the reason was because the process was full of holes and they ARE vulnerable to a lawsuit for approving a plan they shouldn't have.

"Why in gods name if this is such an open and shut case does the city spend so many hundreds of thousands of dollars

that could be spent on our schools and infrastructure? "

Gee, I dunno, maybe because RG4N filed an irresponsible guaranteed-to-lose lawsuit against which the city had to defend or risk losing millions more in the future as a consequence for failing to defend city code?

"guaranteed-to-lose lawsuit against which the city had to defend"

Lawsuits with guaranteed outcomes don't require allocation of hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to defend.

Does the city allocate that kind of money to defend itself anytime they're threatened with a suit?

Remember that the lawsuit was filed and litigated by a bunch of privately funded neighborhood associations and a grass-roots group. According to your own talking points these people and organizations are bankrupt after round one. So why does the city need all this money, all these lawyers?

Open and shut.

Kate: My point isn’t that the distance of the move is an inconvenience, it’s that it will now be in a much less visible locale, and one that is much smaller and less equipped to handle the volume that Northcross could.

Eric: A “good” redevelopment would consist of a vertical mixed-use plan that combines housing, access to mass transit, and retail opportunities focused more on the people that would live in that development and surrounding neighborhoods, not big anchor retail that would be a traffic magnet. The Triangle (near my neighborhood) or the planned Crestview Station on the former Huntsman Chemical property (on the other side of my ‘hood from Northcross) are good examples.

Yes, bad lawsuits can indeed cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against - and yes, it's common practice to farm such work out to outside attorneys:

http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2008/01/why-the-city-hi.html

In short, the tantrum thrown by ANA and RG4N cost Austin taxpayers $600,000 or so and counting. There is no rational way to consider this a cost caused by the city - because as two judges have pointed out, the city code on this matter was quite clear.

The fact that the city council doesn't want to be politically suicidal and seek lawyers' fees from RG4N and ANA does not mean they wouldn't win if they tried.

Lee, assuming you're a good person, you've been fooled by a bunch of Bad People - relatively few people involved in the RG4N effort had any interest in VMU or dense development as has been shown by their actions for years and years on every single multi-family and VMU development proposed - and by their VMU opt-out tantrum as well. They simply aren't credible - you've been abjectly used by people who had no interest in ever building any additional housing or retail in the area.

So that's what you mean by guaranteed. Guaranteed by superior firepower, specifically their discretion with our taxes.

Show us another lawsuit where the city threw away 600k or whatever on fighting a lawsuit against a neighborhood association (how much was spent on that side?)

They only do this when they're either covering their asses or want to establish precedent that neighborhoods are to shut the hell up. Look out if they try to do it to your neighborhood.

since E. 7ths' more my territory, I'll refrain from offering an opinion on that move; but from HEB to Parque Zaragosa is troublesome, because that while that center is only a block away--it is essentially hidden from view from 7th Street.

Visibility DOES matter in elections (how many times during early voting did you plan it in the course of your day vs. seeing the trailers at the grocery store spawning action?).

I hope the County does some DAMN good re-directional signage.

No, anonymous RG4N coward, they had to fight this lawsuit because if they didn't, every single developer that had a site plan _rejected_ could sue on the grounds that the code didn't mean anything anyways.

Oh, plus, Lincoln would have sued - and won.

Did you miss the fact that two different judges have now confirmed what I and everybody else with a brain told you a year ago - that you had no case whatsoever? Are the judges paid bloggers too or whatever other slur Meeker wants you to use this week?

That's right, m1ek, I'm just an idiot who takes my talking points from Jason Meeker. I could not POSSIBLY have come up with my opinions on VMU and Northcross on my own, independently of RG4N. We sheep just don't do that.

Lee, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by saying you were being misled into thinking the RG4N guys were on your side (they're really just using guys like you because simply being NIMBY wasn't going to sell at council). If you'd rather throw that away, go ahead.

And if you don't believe me, it's real simple: look at what the Allandale EC did with their own VMU committee's recommendations. Look at how many mixed-use or multi-family developments the people behind RG4N ever supported over the years - and how many they opposed. Look at how much energy they spent on Northcross redevelopment back when it was just going to be a big conference center.

You still haven't explained how this open-shut thing requires so much of our tax money. Do you have other examples of the city commonly blowing this much cash to fight a destitute (according to your figures) NA?

Is this common? Cities often hire outside counsel. Do they often pay them more than half a mill to fight a bunch of neighbors who are so (supposedly) clearly wrong that a common blogger has all the answers?

If it really is so common, why are you constantly bitching about this like it's not just part of the cost of doing business in a democracy? Half a mill is peanuts to the city. It only seems like a lot in comparison to the resources of the citizens' groups it was used against.

As for your employment status, I don't have any knowledge nor do I really care. If you're not paid, this is the most monumental waste of time I've ever seen. Essence of blogging I guess, and hobbies can seem odd to the passerby.

The ANA won't be spending more $$ on another lawsuit, or much of anything else for that matter. They're insolvent.

Right now they're mainly trying to sucker people into bailing them out of their insolvency before they can't postpone bankruptcy any longer.

(they're doing this by creating the misimpression that donations will go to new activities or actions rather than simply bailing out the fiduciary breaches of the ANA board)

Dear RG4N anonymous coward:

This required $600,000 of taxpayer money because you guys didn't accept defeat. Courts are loath to simply throw out a case - erring as they should as far on the side of granting a hearing as is possible.

You've been proven wrong again and again and again. At this point, one wonders exactly why you think you have any credibility at all, if this "common blogger" has been right so often and you so wrong.

Oh, sorry, it wasn't just this common blogger. It was everybody with a passing familiarity with zoning; the entire city council; two judges; many other bloggers including a real lawyer or two; etc.

As for my employment status, it's you or your puppet-master who keeps insisting that anybody who tells the truth about RG4N must be a "paid blogger".

And as for this being "peanuts" - no, it's not; it would keep a library branch open for a year; it'd pay for miles of sidewalks; it'd pay for a few cops' salaries. But if we had done what you whiny little babies wanted and illegally denied the site plan, the city would have immediately been sued by Lincoln and lost - paying far more money; and running the risk of being sued every time in the future they denied OR approved a site plan, since they would have shown that they did not care to defend city code against the rule by mob you guys prefer (until one day you discover your mob might not be the biggest one, I guess).

Wasted tax dollars? If you say so. I say my entire 3 or 4-buck share of the tax money spent on this whole fight is well worth it. If the big fight helped finally push thru the big box ordinance, that's damn good enough value for my dollar.

No more supercenters, some actual policy gets decided and laid down, and all for the price of a hot dog and coke at Wallyworld? Sign me up!

Think how much acrimony and waste could have been avoided if the BBO had been in place when the Northcross speculation had started. If prior to this latest controversy there had been political will to follow through on the promised protections that people wrongly thought had reflected the will of the city.

Then think how much a law like this would cost in lobbyist and lawyer fees absent a controversy. Think of the lines to give angry speeches at council. Now, because WM backhandedly subsidized the pressure campaign for the ordinance with their development dollars, and since their approval process proved the need for the law and provided all the cover needed, all this pain can be avoided. To me, this seems like a cheap win in a pretty pro-business town.

So even if this thing is built, the tears of RG4N have at minimum bought other neighborhoods the protection every sane person expects from their city, and we've gotten a year of entertainment watching M1EK rend his garments. All this for around the price of a weekday matinee.

Now, since it looks like the Austin Chronicle commenters have authoritatively declared the fight over, I for one welcome our new Arkansas overlords. Any company that had Hillary Clinton on its board is fine in my book anyway. Sure, I wish the store weren't so big and the traffic wouldn't be totally f'd up, but as long as they don't go deciding to sell discount Chinese flamethrowers to us proles I guess I'll get used to the new boss.

The Big Box Ordinance is stupid - and if that's the result of this fight, then it's a bad one. The contention made by many that big retail belongs on frontage roads (the only place the BBO allows them absent a variance - which will of course never be granted) is a guarantee that the low-wage service employees won't be able to take the bus to work (because of unique problems frontage road operations present to transit/pedestrians); and it ignores the history of good urbanism in this country - where most real cities' downtowns, including Austin's, had big department stores right in the middle of it all.

Go ahead and tell people in Manhattan that Macy's should be out in Jersey, in other words.

Cry me a river, or better yet, tell it to me at the next hearing to approve another of your beloved city-center WM supercenters.

In the meantime, why don't you use your impressive skills of agitation, persuasion (ha!), and mostly repetition to get the stupid frontage roads removed from Texas altogether? That's about as viable as telling people WM supercenters are equivalent in size, volume, or meaning to a Macy's, or thinking anyone gives two shits about your theory that stopping sprawl entails inviting its worst components and causes directly into the center of their communities.

Since you have so much time for your blogging hobby, why don't you fight to convince WM that it would serve them well to build multiple, reasonably sized stores throughout a community rather than dumping the concentrated impacts of their hyper-volume business model in the midst of whatever neighborhoods they deem convenient and politically or economically vulnerable. A reasonably-sized WM could anchor a bunch of businesses at Northcross, and do the same thing in your neighborhood. That way the employees don't have to bike as far to work in the 100+ heat and humidity. They don't have to be dependent on the city's buses. They might even be able to walk.

Dear RG4N liar:

The Macy's in Manhattan is larger than the Wal-Mart will be at Northcross. And the model of intensive retail before the car became the only way to get around was that the big stores were in the urban center - again, here in Austin, there used to be a department store or two downtown.

I'd rather be right and not able to persuade liars like you than be wrong but a snake-oil salesman like your group -- in this case, the truth is that the historical pre-car pattern was that the largest retail was in the urban center where the best transit was - not out on the fringe.

As for the rest of your nonsense, it's a lot more feasible for those future service employees to take the bus than it is to bike every day; but, of course, you "neighbors" don't care at all about that as long as you don't get you some Wal-Mart.

I supported the plan for an Urban Target at what later became the Whole Foods HQ, by the way, to which I would have walked. Unlike you anonymous cowards at RG4N, I stand by what I say.

After being tantalized with promises that we would hear about Meeker what would have done to prevent the WalMart site plan from being validated--had he been a council member at the time--there is still nothing posted on the topic. Did the dog really eat the homework here?

What did I lie about? I challenged you to think past your fixation on moving the problem-traffic store from crappy frontage roads, without changing their size or traffic patterns, directly into the city center. This is far from a traditional department store, and you know it. Its traffic will mostly be cars, and you know that too.

In the vein of fantasizing that WM bigbox stores are the same as the Manhattan Macy's, I look forward to being revivified from my cryogenic "sleep" in 2200 to find this thriving Manhattan-like Austin. I can't wait for the WalMart Thanksgiving Parade!

I'm sure I'll ride the pneumatic plexiglass tube through the sky to the city-center station in wonderment, only to find that to my chagrin it's named "M1EK Central" after the fearless, benevolent leader who in 2008 took over the city through a determined deployment of the words "stupid" and "liar" on all city internet communication hubs, finally realizing his dictatorship of the genius planning dilletantes.

"I stand by what I say"

Congratulations on your intestinal fortitude, but just be careful not to stand *in* it.

Your lie:

"That's about as viable as telling people WM supercenters are equivalent in size, volume, or meaning to a Macy's"

The Macy's in Manhattan is, once again, BIGGER than the biggest Wal-Mart you've ever seen. More volume, too.

Does it kind of hurt your feelings to be wrong so often?

Dude, that is in one of the largest cities, with the deepest infrastructure, in the world. Relative to Austin, the percentage of private vehicles even *in* Manhattan is negligible.

If you're playing something that piss-poor as lies, to label people liars, then to me, your very comparison of the two qualifies for examination as misleading.

Let me put it this way: Would WM be able to build a supercenter next door to Macy's in Manhattan? And why haven't they?

Is this how you do your thinking about the city? You seem like an intelligent guy, but this just strikes me as a bewildering comparison.

Other than sq footage and the fact that there are many millions more people in metro NYC and a subway to help their throughput in the commercial centers, what are you bringing to bear in your comparison? I don't get it.

I mean the question honestly, but I'm not gonna continue dicking around if you're not serious. We can just agree to disagree about how WM in Northcross and Macy's in Manhattan compare, if necessary.

I think that the point about farming out the lawyer needs still sets wrong with me. Open and shut means reading the code and defending it. That shouldn't cost $600,000. This isn't a water treatment plant or a power plant, after all, it's a commercially zoned area getting an different kind of store. There are 2 lines. The line between right and wrong, which was definitely crossed, and the line between legal and illegal. having to mount a $600,000 dollar defense against a $50,000 lawsuit should demonstrate to the public that the legal line was pretty grey.

Worth noting: It was prudent for the city to do it, because approving a site plan that shouldn't have still leaves them open to a very big lawsuit from Lincoln.

Their spending such funds to defend their flawed process might have saved more in the long run, but that doesn't make their choice to hide this process from the public any more justified (even the judge said so).

"There are 2 lines. The line between right and wrong, which was definitely crossed, and the line between legal and illegal."

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you very much for paying attention.

Lee, whatever you do, don't throw away m1ek's benefit of the doubt.

He's a blogger! Tremble!

Silver Linings, when you're shown to be wrong, it's normally appropriate to admit it.

As for transportation, the Northcross site is the best place outside of downtown for a big employment center to be - if you want workers to be able to arrive via transit (and I obviously do). Would I support one downtown? Sure. As I said before, I enthusiastically supported the Urban Target design for 6th.

Other anonymous coward: the city has to farm out cases like that and does all the time. Read the link again from Austin Contrarian if you don't get it:

http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2008/01/why-the-city-hi.html

Excerpt near the top:

"This [complaint] is silly, and anyone who knows anything about the practice of law knows it. It is utterly routine for the City to hire outside counsel. Just check out past City Council agendas (accessible here). I chose six meetings at random and the retention or payment of outside counsel was on the agenda in four of them"

M1EK making references to a corporate lawyers page where he openly admits his firm represents land developers doesn't answer the question of why $600,000 in fees for an "ooen and shut case". It also doesn't make me feel any better about the direction this city is going.

It's like you belong to the big money boys.

The city is supposed to be there for THE PEOPLE, not the corporations.

This link has an interesting perspective on city lawyers fees:

http://www.dohertydeceit.com/id12.html

So, latest anonymous coward, this guy can't be trusted even though he's a real lawyer. What about the two judges who made it absolutely clear you had no case whatsoever? What about all the people throughout the city who had even a passing acquaintance with zoning who told you that you had no case whatsoever?

Were ALL those people on the payroll of the big money guys? Really? You honestly think that?

Lee, thanks for your patient response. Part of what I was trying to get at concerned not yours but arguments against Wal-Mart in general. When it's expedient, Wal-Mart opponents decry the company's low wages and poor record of offering its employees health insurance. These same people valorize "local" businesses as the alternative but forget to note that most small companies pay low wages and don't provide health care. So the exploitation-of-labor argument is suddenly dropped when local businesses, which in Austin are usually staffed by happy white hipsters, are involved.

But I must also say that I find something disturbing in your response: the drawing of lines between "neighbors" and not-neighbors (the latter of which lurk behind the phrase "traffic magnet"). To state it even more starkly, this argument tells people who don't live in your neighborhood to stay away from your neighborhood. It's this desire to police who is called a neighbor that, I think, has motivated, at least in part, RG4N from the beginning, though they've learned to modulate it after some pointed out the creepiness of their raising of the racial-tinged specter of crime. If what M1EK says about the history of Allandale and RG4N activists is true -- and I have not been given a reason to believe it isn't -- that would seem to confirm that their true motivation is not what they are now saying it is but merely to keep undesirables out of the neighborhood.

It's disturbing when nativists want to keep "Mexicans" out of "America." It's just as disturbing when "activists" want to keep others out of "their" neighborhood.

Well said, Eric.

Hey, who you calling undesirable?

Seems to me the idea is that people driving through lots of traffic to get to one megastore instead of going to a convenient one near your own home is considered undersirable because it causes increased pollution, risk of accidents, etc. In short it's the opposite of smart growth.

I personally used to drive down manor road and cut through a neighborhood near Airport Blvd to get to a place I needed to go quite often. Eventually one of the neighbors stopped me and politely told me that they had kids running around and they would prefer I stay on the main roads instead of use their neighborhood streets as a cut through.

This sounded completely reasonable to me, and though I was frustrated with the traffic on the main roads, I complied.

Now in this case what would ERIC's stand be?

Because from where I sit what he is assuming with terms like "Racial tinged spectre of crime" that we are elitists, for simply wish for what everyone wants for their neighborhood.

that Eric sure is a pompous douchenozzle. Pull your dogeared People's History out of your ass and get a life!

"Seems to me the idea is that people driving through lots of traffic to get to one megastore instead of going to a convenient one near your own home is considered undersirable because it causes increased pollution, risk of accidents, etc. In short it's the opposite of smart growth."

The traditional urban pattern before the dumb growth exemplified by Allandale and continuing in such megahits as Circle C was that that big stores were located centrally - accessible via transit (not really by foot).

If you want to call Allandale "central" or "urban", don't be surprised when people say it's OK to put big stores there.

"smart growth" has room for both big and small stores - but it would ask that the big stores be located near good transit service. In other words, at Northcross Mall, or downtown.

Polling places get changed all the time. Mine has changed three times in four years.

It's like some sort of fucked up game where you never get to vote in the same location twice and your preceinct is constantly combined with others so all of us get to enjoy standing in line for an hour to use an inadequate number of electronic machines.

(remember when all you needed was a no.2 pencil, a ballot, a couple spare minutes and there was more than enough booths? Gotta love those pricey machines with their pretty dials and buttons)

Take advantage of early voting!

RG4N supports developments that will attract a lot of traffic, just not WM.

Ok, one more time. If you think calling people liars because they don't buy your comparison of Macy's to WM supercenters, then you appear unreasonable.

If you think that it's reasonable to bring up Macy's in Manhattan (among the most unique stores in the world) as somehow relevant to department stores in a city like Austin, as a justification for dumping a sprawl-driven warehouse store and its famous business model onto an unsuitable intersection, then you appear cracked.

Do Macy's in Central Texas have anything to do with your comparison? Because there are so many conflicting variables between a city like NY and one like Austin, that a comparison of planning or development history for the two cities is a joke. It's just a meaningless distraction.

It's not just Macy's in NY; anonymous RG4N coward; most big cities have a big store or two in their core. Back before the advent of subsidized sprawl, Austin had big (proportionally to its size) stores in its core too.

Harrod's in London. Macy's in San Fran and Chicago. Etc.

It's not normal to push big retail out to frontage roads where only people with cars can work and shop there. It's a particularly screwed-up Texas-only way of handling development. In other states, even the standard single-story Wal-Mart design is often miles and miles away from the closest freeway exit.

I'm curious about warehouse stores in city cores.

Like it or not Northcross IS the population center of Austin. Much like Central Park is the center of Manhattan.

While I'm certain a bunch of People in NYC would favor putting a giant Wal-Mart in the center of central park, the city sensibly doesn't allow such things. It makes sense to NOT allow "in a city that is supposed to be a class act" a discount warehouse to be the population center of the city. It reveals clearly and truly what a sellout town we live in.

I bet the damned thing will fail soon enough, but seriously, think about it. Look Up wal-Mart in Seattle, San Francisco, New York. See how many are in the areas, see how many or them are in the popluation center of the city....

Then look at Austin.

We aren't heading towards a sensible future. All this talk about Macy's in New York is a joke. 95 percent of the people in Manhattan use public transportation, only 23 percent even own cars at all. They buy their food down stairs from their homes, and live an entirely different lifestyle than we do here.

Promoting Warehouse Superstores in the middle of the city is about as a%% backwards as you can get. Let VMU settle in, get REAL public transportation take hold, and you will find Wal-Mart doesn't WANT to live in central Austin, where their car centric business model doesn't work.

This board allows anonymous posting, you should try to just deal with it rather than the anon. coward name calling thing.

Dear anonymous coward"s" from RG4N:

When Wal-Mart makes a baby step towards being more urban, it's not rational to claim they're promoting sprawl. They may be inartful and ignorant, but this store is a baby step in the right direction (Urban Target does it better; but we couldn't lure them back after 6th/Lamar failed the first time I guess).

As for the continual goalpost shifting; you guys tried to claim that really big stores don't belong in the urban core. It's clear that the history of development in this country shows that absent subsidized suburban sprawl, the core is exactly where they belong - the unnatural thing, in other words, is the supercenter on the frontage road.

The fact that at the present time the only big store that wants in to Northcross is a Wal-Mart is irrelevant - you said big stores don't belong in the core; and you were dead wrong.

That's hilarious.

making a baby step towards urban for Wal-Mart = not promoting sprawl is like saying a platypus can fly because it has a duck bill.

That bus stop is a joke too. Dangerous and difficult to get to and from the mall from. When traffic hits all the Wal-Mart lovers will end up going to the awful frontage road stores because it will be easier to get in and out.

Babbs, thanks for your comment. Bleeding heart's bloodier, if the option is between being a "pompous douchnozzle" who actually makes an argument (i.e., me) or a soi-disant wit who makes creative insults but apparently doesn't have a fucking thing to say (i.e., you), I'll take pomposity every time. And though I'm not, I'd rather be entranced by the People's History than the Andrew Dice Clay autobiography that seems to inform your world-view. You shitspigot.

Guest, I have no interest in calling you elitist (or racist); that's not very productive or accurate, or even very fun. I think I shall dub you douchnozzle instead. Heh. ... It's hard for me to respond to your claim that you "wish for what everyone wants for their neighborhood," not because I doubt your sincerity or even the desirability of the sentiment, but because you take a neighborhood as a natural fact. It's not. Defining the boundaries of the neighborhood and deciding who gets called neighbor is a political process in itself, and in my observations of the Northcross affair, I've come to believe it's this question that lies at the heart the controversy. Not the relative benefits of VMU versus bigbox, or labor exploitation, or democracy, or whatever. I suppose this would be okay if the activists were open about it and wanted to discuss who gets to decide and what the criteria are for who is excluded, but they are not, because they don't want to appear discriminatory. Instead, they oppose "Wal-Mart" (i.e., the poorer and browner people who would work and shop there) and "multifamily apartments" (i.e., the poorer and browner people who would live there).

I think that what RG4N "wants for their neighborhood" is to keep people out of it. I can't get behind that goal.

Eric,

grow up.

Taping "racist" to someone who thinks it prudent to build many sensibly sized stores for an area as opposed to mega sized stores is simple minded and pathetic.

Labeling these communities as elitist or racist is your excuse for not listening to real issues.

This city agrees whole heartedly that super stores like these don't belong in the middle of town.

I suppose the big box ordinance is racist too.

you say you aren't labeling them as elitist but then say

"because they don't want to appear discriminatory. Instead, they oppose "Wal-Mart" (i.e., the poorer and browner people who would work and shop there) and "multifamily apartments" (i.e., the poorer and browner people who would live there).

"

I guess this is what the sane of the city are up against. People who will deny exactly what they are saying in the next paragraph.

P.S. I agree it's an artificial construct, the term neighborhood. It's not about delinieating people who belong here or don't belong there, it's about responsible growth. It's about sustainable cities, it's about reducing pollution.

Of course those things must be "not racist" either, but "about keeping the browner out"

There's a huge difference between calling an individual or a group of individuals "racist" and saying that the political process they are participating in is using race as a criteria for drawing political boundaries. The former is personalizing, and I'm not interested in that; I'm not interested in calling people names. I am interested in how borders are created and maintained, because in this country, in this time, that process is always infused with race.

Many anti-immigrant groups say they, personally, are not racist, and they probably aren't; I have no reason to disbelieve them. But the act of wanting to keep people out of the nation where they live is completely inspired by racial convictions. Defining a neighborhood is not much different.

Apparently I can't even follow my own distinction. Probably a symptom of my immaturity and need to grow up. The phrase "inspired by racial convictions" is too individualist. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter how pure the personal antiracist cred of individuals in a group, neighborhood politics, like national politics, draw upon racial distinctions, and those distinctions inform how boundaries are drawn. They are not completely determinative, and there are other factors, but race is huge. Surely people who live in a town in which white people live on one side of a major highway and brown people live on the other side can recognize that this is so.

Is it a neighborhood just because it encompasses a bunch of longstanding homes with neighbors and associations and schools and families and community? Is a tree a tree, or is the word tree just a signifier for the unknowable essence of some tree-form godhead that emerges from the collective subconscious?

Who knows? Are there racists in these "neighborhoods" or are these just figments of Eric's imagination, sad remnants of his failed bricolage?

Yoo-hoo, you wanna-be Derrida, you're the only person on this board talking about brown people and undesirables.

Why don't you go "delineate" a subjective discussion space, and imagine yourself up some other racist (perhaps a six-foot rabbit klansman or something) to have this argument with? There's no one here biting.

Shame on this neighborhood!

Some choice quotes I've seen posted here a few times:

"In addition to the horrific effect it would have on traffic, I am deeply concerned with the crime that a 24-hour discount store would attract the area. (sic) Let's not kid ourselves. This type of store does not attract a good element. Wal-Marts are big dirty stores selling cheap junk at cut-rate prices to pack in people with little money or education, and no amount of cute advertising can change that."

"This is without mentioning the criminal element Walmart's bring. Go drive by ANY of the Walmarts and look whose hanging around"

"Burnet Rd. along that area is starting to look like Mexico. The only foot traffic are mothers with 5 and 6 children, many times crossing in the middle of the busy streeets, not at lights. The parking lot at the HEB on Burnet is covered in trash and at night, that store is just plain scarry. I shop at the Far West store even though HEB is four blocks from my house. If Malwart comes in, I'm out of this neighbrhood. I call it the dumbing down of shopping. Make it cheap, it will look cheap and then only really poor people will come to buy cheap."

Recall that this is a public message board. Assuming these quotes you've now re-posted are from the chronicle boards, there's nothing to stop race-baiters from posting this kind of shit to sow confusion. Show me some attributable quotes like that and we can talk. Assuming these were real people and not plants, quoting the fringe to discredit a bunch of neighborhoods is hardly difficult anyway, if that's what you're inclined to.

In the meantime, when did you quit beating your wife?

Hey m1ek, Austin's neighborhoods don't exist to reward "baby steps" toward sanity.

Thanks for being so open to experimenting with the impact of slightly modified warehouse stores (you'd call them department stores I guess) with other peoples' livelihoods and neighborhoods. Did your neighbors support the Target? Do you have any links to what I assume was a controversy of lesser proportions? My assumption based on the fact that if you could put a 200,000 sq foot store on the site, Whole Foods would have done it.

"Is a tree a tree, or is the word tree just a signifier for the unknowable essence of some tree-form godhead that emerges from the collective subconscious?"

Wow, man, you pegged me. Everything I've been saying here is pure metaphysical inquiry. Why do I get the feeling you are either someone I know or a Chron staffer? Either way, is it possible you could try to argue against me instead of mock me? I'm just thick enough to be impervious to mocking.

"Yoo-hoo, you wanna-be Derrida, you're the only person on this board talking about brown people and undesirables."

I'm not much for Derrida, actually. But this discussion does maybe call for an Althusserian symptomatic reading: the fact that no one is talking about race and undesirables is revealing and significant; the undiscussed is just as important as the discussed.

"There's no one here biting."

Apparently there is.

You're nothing but a smaller demographic. Don't think you haven't been profiled long ago.

We'll be sure to stock the store with black mock turtlenecks that are diligently free of any branding.

M1EK, believer in lawyers. What a naif.

If you can portray the neighborhoods as racists, we'll have (actual, real) female barbers dressed in expensive middle-age creative-anachronism period garb to tonsure Eric and his pals while reading them comic books about the coming postmodern apocolypse.

We'll pretend we don't even know who the quarterback at UT is.

Better than your original deal? You earned it, Eric!

That is most definitely the ticket.

If you mean THE MIDDLE AGES, then I'm down with the Eric.

That shit is hot.

There was relatively little controversy about the Target at the time. A few of the type that are against anything anytime everywhere were mildly upset, but that was about it (no protests or even threats of same; no organized opposition of any kind).

Here's an article which talks about it some:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A75238

Thanks. That's interesting. Also thanks for not chiming in on this whole "you racists" thing we got running again.

Definitely staff.

"You're nothing but a smaller demographic. Don't think you haven't been profiled long ago."

Cool, I've been fingered and typed by your Breakfast Club sociology. So, in your (John) Hughesian universe, if I'm Psuedo-Intellectual, who are you? Wannabe Gonzo Journalist?

"We'll be sure to stock the store with black mock turtlenecks that are diligently free of any branding."

Mock turtleneck? I like a full turtleneck. It maximizes the pretentious factor.

"If you can portray the neighborhoods as racists"

I wonder how many ways I need to say that I'm not saying any particular person is a racist. Probably a million at least, since it seems like a great comfort for everyone to believe I'm saying that. But I guess that way you don't have counter my arguments AND you get to display your estimable wit.

So you're calling some scattered, undefinable group of people racists? Are you calling RG4N racist? Are you calling these neighborhoods you don't believe in racist?

WTF are you talking about?

I'm not calling anybody a racist. Why is this so hard to understand? Fuck. I'm saying that the anti-Northcross movment is making use of the racial politics that operate in the American scene to defend its neighborhood. You demand that I assign some subject (RG4N) a predicate (racist), but I'm not going to do it. It's stupid. Political processes don't operate according to the declared ideology of those participating in them. Ten-year-olds know this. Besides, what's the point? So you can dismiss my political arguments because it's ridiculous to believe that you are racist since you are voting for Obama or something? Are you looking for absolution? I can't offer it, and wouldn't if I could.

Did you know that Quack's Bakery on 43rd is doing an unofficial cookie poll with Hillary and Obama cookies??

The big cookies are selling like hotcakes, and Obama is selling 2-to-1 over Hillary.

The Washington Post has even covered this story. What fun!

Get over to Quack's on 43rd and buy your candidate's cookie...great debate munchies!!

So we're talking about some free-floating racism in the general environment that disturbs you? Got it.

And RG4N is "using" this free-floating malignance. But you're not calling them racist. Got it.

You do know that these are people, right? In what sense are you not tarring them and their cause as racist?

I'm not looking for absolution from you. I'm pointing out that you're full of shit.

Is that it? Is that all????? Come on can't M1EK talk more about how Allandale makes racist comments? Can't Eric keep going with.... something???????

What about St Thomas and what HE would think of RG4N????

The quoted comments really do exist from real neighbors in allandale. They were made on the yahoo listerv for ANA. And no, there was no general uprising against the statements. I wanted to know if my latina girlfriend visiting my house was making the quoted Wal-Mart opponent afraid that it was dragging down his property value.

If so, that person does suck. Sounds like whoever they are they need some therapy and a good moderator.

Really, though, don't moderators usually take responsibility for getting rid of kooks like this so that they don't get to keep spamming people with racism? Or do you do that with torches and pitchforks in that neighborhood?

If someone from Allandale or Crestview says on here that the Sooners rule, does that mean that all of Allandale and Crestview hate UT? I'm just trying to get a grip on the logic that makes everybody responsible for any damn offensive BS randomly posted on the internet.

Thank you.

All these people want to do is DEMOLISH neighborhoods and throw the people OUT and build cheaply constructed condos and sell them for millions of dollars!

There is not nearly enough affordable housing being built to replace the housing being torn down!

Where are the people whose homes were foreclosed on by crooked lending practices going to go?

MAYBE ONE OF THEM IS YOU OR SOON WILL BE!

THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!

WE HAVE PLENTY OF WAL-MARTS HERE NOW.

WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER ONE?

TO REPLACE MORE JOB LOSS?

WHICH ONE OF THE LOCAL HIGH TECH BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO FIRE MORE PEOPLE THIS TIME ON THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE WAGE SCALE,WORKING CONDITIONS, LACK OF POLLUTION CONTROLS AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS IN THIRD WORLD HELLS?

Has it ever occurred to YOU that we might BE making a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY HELL FOR OURSELVES!

PROTEST DEVELOPERS!

Austin City Council needs to SAY NO TO THEIR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER CRONIES!

City residents who are already overburdened with exorbitant tax rates are subsidizing The Domain -- thishigh-end, trendy,Upscale YUPPIE shopping altar to greed and conspicuous consumption. I don't know too many people who live in Austin who can afford to SHOP in the Domain or work there either since most of those service jobs won't stretch enough to make car and house or rent payments these days and groceries and the things ordinary working people need.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR CITY HALL ALLIES HAVING A BIG PRIVATE PARTY FOR THEIR FRIENDS AND FORGETTING TO INVITE THE TAXPAYERS OF AUSTIN!

They might be able to use the International Building Code to have your home declared a "blight" and get your place by eminent domain( U.S.Supreme court says they can -- Google it and see).

You guys should have THOUGHT about things like this when you were electing your CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS!

Unless I don't pay rent for a month on my shitty apartment complex.

You should write about how many people and/or dogs showed up to Paws Around Northcross. I'm sure we should hate WM for their low number of supporters too.