No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA where
some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it with
lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
opposition.
They dismiss all opposition and arguements as "ludicrous".... how insulting
and typical of a low brow company that targets the dollar of the red neck
and working poor demographic. A rapidly growing demographic thanks in part
to an equally rapidly growing preponderance of low-wage, low-skill wal-mart
type service jobs.
YUCK!
Do the world a favor and never shop at Wal mart or Sams Club Again! Ever!
Thanks for your time.

No Wal-Mart over the Aquifer!
http://www.austinaction.org/modules....rticle&artid=4

Take Action!!
http://www.austinaction.org/modules....ages_categorie
s&cid=1

Wal-Mart Supercenters Face Resistance

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...on_bi_ge/wal_m
art_rebuff


Similar links
http://www.againstthewal.com

In article ,
gologa wrote:

| No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA where
| some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it with
| lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
| opposition.

Personally, I'm looking forward to having a Super Wal-mart there.

As for building it over the aquifer, the aquifer is huge! If you
weren't aware of this --

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/images/edwards.gif

even the `recharge zone' makes up a large part of central Texas. To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly, especially since it seems that everybody else is allowed to
build there (as long as they follow certain rules.)

And it seems that most of the people complaining have already built
there -- they built their houses there. Sounds hypocritical to me ...

Seems to me that it's just another example of NIMBY -- `not in my back
yard.' Or maybe they don't *really* mind that much, but since they
might be able to make Wal-Mart compensate them somehow, they're going
to push for that.

--
Doug McLaren,
"Just once, I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'you're
making a scene'." --Homer Simpson

Doug,
Did you bother to read the information about this particular supercenter
before you began hurling accusations of hypocracy???? Think about our
quality of life here and whether you want this whole area to become like
Houston/Dallas/Atlanta.

"Sited at the corner of Slaughter and MoPac, the SuperCenter could exceed
impervious cover levels by three times the amount allowed by the Save Our
Springs Ordinance. Company principals have admitted that the water quality
controls they've proposed on the property may be inadequate to manage
pollutants. The property is surrounded by pristene hill country land and the
property itself drains directly into the Barton Creek system, dyetraced to
less than one hour runoff time. There are NO other retail sites in this area
and the back alley of this supercenter would literally sit next to the
backyards of about 50 homes. They will use grandfathered land, exempt from
SOS laws to build this crap on, which allows up to 65% impervious cover
(concrete/parking lot). And they will destroy/clear over 40 acres of live
oaks. Not to mention that there are rare caves on the land like those that
would be paved over if they build Tx highway 45.

The tract of land is located between Davis and Slaughter Lanes with no
traffic access from MoPac. In addition to Wal-Mart, which will be open 24
hours, and accepting 18 wheeler deliveries all night. Endeavor is promoting
the "tremendous growth" in environmentally sensitive Southwest Austin over
the past decade as a lure to sell the pad sites. Council Member Slusher
regards promoting the Wal-Mart tract as "a conscious decision on Endeavor's
part to profit from polluting."

The neighbors surrounding the proposed development are concerned about the
increased traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, and water pollution.
Because the only access to the development will be from Slaughter and Davis
Lanes, all traffic destined for the shopping center will flow Through the
Neighborhoods. There is already a Wal-Mart less than 4 miles away, and many
worry that it will close once the new store is built, leaving yet another
empty big-box retail builing.
Most of ALL, we dont Want IT, Nor do we need it, we have four supermarkets,
one walmart, one target all within 3 miles of the site. They demographics of
the area do not support it as well.
Peace.
gologa



"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
gologa wrote:

| No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA
where
| some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it
with
| lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
| opposition.

Personally, I'm looking forward to having a Super Wal-mart there.

As for building it over the aquifer, the aquifer is huge! If you
weren't aware of this --

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/images/edwards.gif

even the `recharge zone' makes up a large part of central Texas. To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly, especially since it seems that everybody else is allowed to
build there (as long as they follow certain rules.)

And it seems that most of the people complaining have already built
there -- they built their houses there. Sounds hypocritical to me ...

Seems to me that it's just another example of NIMBY -- `not in my back
yard.' Or maybe they don't *really* mind that much, but since they
might be able to make Wal-Mart compensate them somehow, they're going
to push for that.

--
Doug McLaren,
"Just once, I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'you're
making a scene'." --Homer Simpson

Me thinks you shouldn't punish Wal-Mart for being able to swindle city
council. Remember, they can't build without the proper permits, exemptions,
variances and so on. If you want to blame someone, blame those who allow
them to build on this commercially zoned parcel.


"gologa" wrote in message
news
Doug,
Did you bother to read the information about this particular supercenter
before you began hurling accusations of hypocracy???? Think about our
quality of life here and whether you want this whole area to become like
Houston/Dallas/Atlanta.

"Sited at the corner of Slaughter and MoPac, the SuperCenter could exceed
impervious cover levels by three times the amount allowed by the Save Our
Springs Ordinance. Company principals have admitted that the water quality
controls they've proposed on the property may be inadequate to manage
pollutants. The property is surrounded by pristene hill country land and
the
property itself drains directly into the Barton Creek system, dyetraced to
less than one hour runoff time. There are NO other retail sites in this
area
and the back alley of this supercenter would literally sit next to the
backyards of about 50 homes. They will use grandfathered land, exempt from
SOS laws to build this crap on, which allows up to 65% impervious cover
(concrete/parking lot). And they will destroy/clear over 40 acres of live
oaks. Not to mention that there are rare caves on the land like those that
would be paved over if they build Tx highway 45.

The tract of land is located between Davis and Slaughter Lanes with no
traffic access from MoPac. In addition to Wal-Mart, which will be open 24
hours, and accepting 18 wheeler deliveries all night. Endeavor is
promoting
the "tremendous growth" in environmentally sensitive Southwest Austin over
the past decade as a lure to sell the pad sites. Council Member Slusher
regards promoting the Wal-Mart tract as "a conscious decision on
Endeavor's
part to profit from polluting."

The neighbors surrounding the proposed development are concerned about the
increased traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, and water pollution.
Because the only access to the development will be from Slaughter and
Davis
Lanes, all traffic destined for the shopping center will flow Through the
Neighborhoods. There is already a Wal-Mart less than 4 miles away, and
many
worry that it will close once the new store is built, leaving yet another
empty big-box retail builing.
Most of ALL, we dont Want IT, Nor do we need it, we have four
supermarkets,
one walmart, one target all within 3 miles of the site. They demographics
of
the area do not support it as well.
Peace.
gologa



"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
gologa wrote:

| No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA
where
| some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it
with
| lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
| opposition.

Personally, I'm looking forward to having a Super Wal-mart there.

As for building it over the aquifer, the aquifer is huge! If you
weren't aware of this --

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/images/edwards.gif

even the `recharge zone' makes up a large part of central Texas. To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly, especially since it seems that everybody else is allowed to
build there (as long as they follow certain rules.)

And it seems that most of the people complaining have already built
there -- they built their houses there. Sounds hypocritical to me ...

Seems to me that it's just another example of NIMBY -- `not in my back
yard.' Or maybe they don't *really* mind that much, but since they
might be able to make Wal-Mart compensate them somehow, they're going
to push for that.

--
Doug McLaren,
"Just once, I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'you're
making a scene'." --Homer Simpson

Doug McLaren wrote:

To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly

The problem with building over the recharge zone isn't that
you will somehow "block off" water from getting into the
aquifer. The water gets in there no matter what you do. The
problem is that Wal-Mart draws enormous amounts of traffic,
which deposit all sorts of automotive pollutants, and when it
rains, all those pollutants go straight into the aquifer.

Homes are different from Wal-Mart because homes are rather
small sources of pollution, whereas Wal-Mart is a whopping
huge one. All those homes probably contribute less pollution
to the aquifer in a year than a Wal-Mart would in a day.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:27:48 GMT, "gologa" wrote:

"Sited at the corner of Slaughter and MoPac, the SuperCenter

Will they offer a gardening sales area?

Rusty Mase


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
spdf wrote:
| Doug McLaren wrote:
|
| To not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer
| seems a bit silly
|
| The problem with building over the recharge zone isn't that you will
| somehow "block off" water from getting into the aquifer. The water
| gets in there no matter what you do. The problem is that Wal-Mart
| draws enormous amounts of traffic, which deposit all sorts of
| automotive pollutants, and when it rains, all those pollutants go
| straight into the aquifer.

The recharge zone is *huge*, roughly 1500 square miles. Are you
suggesting that no `superstores' be built on it? But homes and
smaller stores are ok?

| Homes are different from Wal-Mart because homes are rather small
| sources of pollution, whereas Wal-Mart is a whopping huge one. All
| those homes probably contribute less pollution to the aquifer in a
| year than a Wal-Mart would in a day.

So, how many cars will this Wal-Mart bring to the city then?

You must not be talking about cars that are already in the city,
because if they don't go to Wal-Mart for their groceries, they'll go
down to the HEB or Randals a few blocks away, depositing their
polutants there. Either way, the total amount of polutants isn't
going to change much. And if the alternate grocery store is within
the recharge zone (quite likely) all those polutants still go in the
aquifer.

--
Doug McLaren, Dime is money.

"gologa" wrote in message
news
Doug,
Did you bother to read the information about this particular supercenter
before you began hurling accusations of hypocracy???? Think about our
quality of life here and whether you want this whole area to become like
Houston/Dallas/Atlanta.

"Sited at the corner of Slaughter and MoPac, the SuperCenter could exceed
impervious cover levels by three times the amount allowed by the Save Our
"snip"

Finally a great big parking lot for my kids to skateboard in. When the get
to hot and hungry they can graze chilled food isles. I hope you don't mind
if they cut through your yard to come home.

Thanks

In article ,
Verminard wrote:

| Finally a great big parking lot for my kids to skateboard in.

I haven't seen many kids skateboarding in any parking lots so far.
What's going to be so special about this one?

Skateboarding in a big flat parking lot strikes me as rather boring.
Now, a flood control setup with lots of slopes and hills and such,
that could be fun, and I've seen kids skateboarding in things like
that recently.

| When the get to hot and hungry they can graze chilled food isles.

How fun for them.

| I hope you don't mind if they cut through your yard to come home.

So, you think that because kids might go to this new place and then
tresspass on your property, that's a valid reason to not allow the
land owners of this property to legally develop it as they see fit?
Interesting.

--
Doug McLaren,
A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it
is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Oh get off it!


"gologa" wrote in message
. ..
No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA where
some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it with
lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
opposition.
They dismiss all opposition and arguements as "ludicrous".... how
insulting
and typical of a low brow company that targets the dollar of the red neck
and working poor demographic. A rapidly growing demographic thanks in part
to an equally rapidly growing preponderance of low-wage, low-skill
wal-mart
type service jobs.
YUCK!
Do the world a favor and never shop at Wal mart or Sams Club Again! Ever!
Thanks for your time.

No Wal-Mart over the Aquifer!

http://www.austinaction.org/modules....rticle&artid=4

Take Action!!

http://www.austinaction.org/modules....ages_categorie
s&cid=1

Wal-Mart Supercenters Face Resistance


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...on_bi_ge/wal_m
art_rebuff


Similar links
http://www.againstthewal.com

No. They don't "go straight into the aquifer" you frickin idiot.



"spdf" wrote in message
news
Doug McLaren wrote:

To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly

The problem with building over the recharge zone isn't that
you will somehow "block off" water from getting into the
aquifer. The water gets in there no matter what you do. The
problem is that Wal-Mart draws enormous amounts of traffic,
which deposit all sorts of automotive pollutants, and when it
rains, all those pollutants go straight into the aquifer.

Homes are different from Wal-Mart because homes are rather
small sources of pollution, whereas Wal-Mart is a whopping
huge one. All those homes probably contribute less pollution
to the aquifer in a year than a Wal-Mart would in a day.

Oh what a delightful person you are.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:24:15 GMT, "Molly Fredericks" wrote:

No. They don't "go straight into the aquifer" you frickin idiot.



"spdf" wrote in message
news
Doug McLaren wrote:

To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly

The problem with building over the recharge zone isn't that
you will somehow "block off" water from getting into the
aquifer. The water gets in there no matter what you do. The
problem is that Wal-Mart draws enormous amounts of traffic,
which deposit all sorts of automotive pollutants, and when it
rains, all those pollutants go straight into the aquifer.

Homes are different from Wal-Mart because homes are rather
small sources of pollution, whereas Wal-Mart is a whopping
huge one. All those homes probably contribute less pollution
to the aquifer in a year than a Wal-Mart would in a day.

Actually, "straight into the aquifer" is a fairly good description of
how recharge to the Edwards aquifer works..........


On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:24:15 GMT, "Molly Fredericks"
wrote:

No. They don't "go straight into the aquifer" you frickin idiot.



"spdf" wrote in message
news
Doug McLaren wrote:

To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly

The problem with building over the recharge zone isn't that
you will somehow "block off" water from getting into the
aquifer. The water gets in there no matter what you do. The
problem is that Wal-Mart draws enormous amounts of traffic,
which deposit all sorts of automotive pollutants, and when it
rains, all those pollutants go straight into the aquifer.

Homes are different from Wal-Mart because homes are rather
small sources of pollution, whereas Wal-Mart is a whopping
huge one. All those homes probably contribute less pollution
to the aquifer in a year than a Wal-Mart would in a day.

Some people will always oppose commercial development, and then make up the
reasons/excuses to fit the scenario.
Be wary.


"gologa" wrote in message
news
Doug,
Did you bother to read the information about this particular supercenter
before you began hurling accusations of hypocracy???? Think about our
quality of life here and whether you want this whole area to become like
Houston/Dallas/Atlanta.

"Sited at the corner of Slaughter and MoPac, the SuperCenter could exceed
impervious cover levels by three times the amount allowed by the Save Our
Springs Ordinance. Company principals have admitted that the water quality
controls they've proposed on the property may be inadequate to manage
pollutants. The property is surrounded by pristene hill country land and
the
property itself drains directly into the Barton Creek system, dyetraced to
less than one hour runoff time. There are NO other retail sites in this
area
and the back alley of this supercenter would literally sit next to the
backyards of about 50 homes. They will use grandfathered land, exempt from
SOS laws to build this crap on, which allows up to 65% impervious cover
(concrete/parking lot). And they will destroy/clear over 40 acres of live
oaks. Not to mention that there are rare caves on the land like those that
would be paved over if they build Tx highway 45.

The tract of land is located between Davis and Slaughter Lanes with no
traffic access from MoPac. In addition to Wal-Mart, which will be open 24
hours, and accepting 18 wheeler deliveries all night. Endeavor is
promoting
the "tremendous growth" in environmentally sensitive Southwest Austin over
the past decade as a lure to sell the pad sites. Council Member Slusher
regards promoting the Wal-Mart tract as "a conscious decision on
Endeavor's
part to profit from polluting."

The neighbors surrounding the proposed development are concerned about the
increased traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, and water pollution.
Because the only access to the development will be from Slaughter and
Davis
Lanes, all traffic destined for the shopping center will flow Through the
Neighborhoods. There is already a Wal-Mart less than 4 miles away, and
many
worry that it will close once the new store is built, leaving yet another
empty big-box retail builing.
Most of ALL, we dont Want IT, Nor do we need it, we have four
supermarkets,
one walmart, one target all within 3 miles of the site. They demographics
of
the area do not support it as well.
Peace.
gologa



"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
gologa wrote:

| No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA
where
| some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it
with
| lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
| opposition.

Personally, I'm looking forward to having a Super Wal-mart there.

As for building it over the aquifer, the aquifer is huge! If you
weren't aware of this --

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/images/edwards.gif

even the `recharge zone' makes up a large part of central Texas. To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly, especially since it seems that everybody else is allowed to
build there (as long as they follow certain rules.)

And it seems that most of the people complaining have already built
there -- they built their houses there. Sounds hypocritical to me ...

Seems to me that it's just another example of NIMBY -- `not in my back
yard.' Or maybe they don't *really* mind that much, but since they
might be able to make Wal-Mart compensate them somehow, they're going
to push for that.

--
Doug McLaren,
"Just once, I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'you're
making a scene'." --Homer Simpson

I'm not necessarily against the building of Walmart stores, but does there
really need to be one every few miles in every direction?


On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:12:39 GMT, "Molly Fredericks" wrote:

Some people will always oppose commercial development, and then make up the
reasons/excuses to fit the scenario.
Be wary.


"gologa" wrote in message
news
Doug,
Did you bother to read the information about this particular supercenter
before you began hurling accusations of hypocracy???? Think about our
quality of life here and whether you want this whole area to become like
Houston/Dallas/Atlanta.

"Sited at the corner of Slaughter and MoPac, the SuperCenter could exceed
impervious cover levels by three times the amount allowed by the Save Our
Springs Ordinance. Company principals have admitted that the water quality
controls they've proposed on the property may be inadequate to manage
pollutants. The property is surrounded by pristene hill country land and
the
property itself drains directly into the Barton Creek system, dyetraced to
less than one hour runoff time. There are NO other retail sites in this
area
and the back alley of this supercenter would literally sit next to the
backyards of about 50 homes. They will use grandfathered land, exempt from
SOS laws to build this crap on, which allows up to 65% impervious cover
(concrete/parking lot). And they will destroy/clear over 40 acres of live
oaks. Not to mention that there are rare caves on the land like those that
would be paved over if they build Tx highway 45.

The tract of land is located between Davis and Slaughter Lanes with no
traffic access from MoPac. In addition to Wal-Mart, which will be open 24
hours, and accepting 18 wheeler deliveries all night. Endeavor is
promoting
the "tremendous growth" in environmentally sensitive Southwest Austin over
the past decade as a lure to sell the pad sites. Council Member Slusher
regards promoting the Wal-Mart tract as "a conscious decision on
Endeavor's
part to profit from polluting."

The neighbors surrounding the proposed development are concerned about the
increased traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, and water pollution.
Because the only access to the development will be from Slaughter and
Davis
Lanes, all traffic destined for the shopping center will flow Through the
Neighborhoods. There is already a Wal-Mart less than 4 miles away, and
many
worry that it will close once the new store is built, leaving yet another
empty big-box retail builing.
Most of ALL, we dont Want IT, Nor do we need it, we have four
supermarkets,
one walmart, one target all within 3 miles of the site. They demographics
of
the area do not support it as well.
Peace.
gologa



"Doug McLaren" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
gologa wrote:

| No word on whether they will back off, probably not since even in CA
where
| some towns have banned the Supercenters, Wal Mart's lawyers fight it
with
| lawsuits and ballot box referendums to build anyway! in Spite of large
| opposition.

Personally, I'm looking forward to having a Super Wal-mart there.

As for building it over the aquifer, the aquifer is huge! If you
weren't aware of this --

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/images/edwards.gif

even the `recharge zone' makes up a large part of central Texas. To
not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer seems a
bit silly, especially since it seems that everybody else is allowed to
build there (as long as they follow certain rules.)

And it seems that most of the people complaining have already built
there -- they built their houses there. Sounds hypocritical to me ...

Seems to me that it's just another example of NIMBY -- `not in my back
yard.' Or maybe they don't *really* mind that much, but since they
might be able to make Wal-Mart compensate them somehow, they're going
to push for that.

--
Doug McLaren,
"Just once, I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'you're
making a scene'." --Homer Simpson