To Save the Trees, Start by Saving Poor People

Categories: Get Off My Lawn

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Maybe we need some context for this week's debate on Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vs. the tree canopy. After a not-very-uplifting debate yesterday including the line, "Trees do not vote," our esteemed city council voted to allow a developer to decimate a vast swath of the urban forest for a new Walmart at Ledbetter and R.L. Thornton.

Commenters here offered some brilliant insights, including the possibility that in some Dallas precincts trees actually may vote, which would help explain some anomalous outcomes at the polls in the past. But there also was a tendency in the comments to characterize the outcome as a typical stupid Dallas City Council deal.

I'm not here to differ, but the important thing to note may be that yesterday's vote was actually part of a typical stupid global deal. We all seem to be slow in the head -- and by "all" I mean "the species" -- in figuring out the nexus between economics, the environment and the survival of life on our planet.

Poor comes first, and poor is a sliding scale. Maybe poor means not enough food for your baby. Maybe poor means crappier stores than they have across town. Poor is relative. But poor is always very important.

Don't talk to people about the environment until after you've talked to them about poor. Southern Dallas council members, led by Vonciel Hill, told the white council members that they want a viable economy in their part of town before they're going to worry about viable trees. It's a small version of a bigger theme heard all over the Third World: Let us join your economy as full partners, and then we'll talk about joining your green movement.

Solving economic inequity is the first step in saving the ecosystem. Otherwise, forget about it.

I'm not saying that's smart. I don't think any of us is very smart about this.

Get Microsoft Silverlight

A U.N. report this year shows that nobody gets hammered by global warming worse than than the poor of the world. Every aspect of climate change from drought to flood to asthma hits poverty-stricken populations sooner and much harder than it hits the people who can afford to buy their way out of harm's way. And then there is the ultimate dismal fact: If we allow global harm to be the dominant trend, then nobody, no matter how rich, buys his way out of harm's way forever.

The U.N. report was not all dismal. It shed light on trends we should all take as encouraging. In Latin America and the Caribbean, 95 percent of people surveyed said that climate change is a serious threat, compared with 68 percent in the world at large. India, Bhutan and Vietnam are now increasing the size of their national forests rather than diminishing them, and deforestation in the Amazon region of Brazil has slowed by 70 percent.

The challenge keenly illustrated by yesterday's debate on a new Walmart is this: You can't ask people to pull together for trees if you're not willing to truly pull together on economic and social equity first. It's just not going to work.

Would people be willing to die, just to make a point about things being unfair? Yeah. Sure. Voting to chop down a gob of trees in southern Dallas is a vote to give more babies asthma, but there you have it. Don't tell people they have to live with what they view as inequity in order to save the planet. They'll die first. In fact, I think that's why our nation exists.

And it works both ways. A refusal to address economic inequity, no matter what ideological principle people think they are upholding, spells absolute doom for the environment. Go ahead and take a rigid stand for individual responsibility. Tell southern Dallas or Brazil that you don't care how poor they are: They have to save those damned trees anyway. Then kiss the trees goodbye.

The environment is not a scientific question. It's a moral, social, political question. We've all got each other by the throat. We all have to blink. Or we can be toast together.

That's what Walmart vs. the trees was all about. I happen to think toast won that one. Let's hope we can do better next time out.

My Voice Nation Help
55 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Diane Birdwell
Diane Birdwell

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs meets Dallas Chamber of Commerce.. Trees will lose big.

Melissa
Melissa

As someone living in Far East Dallas near the old Casa View Shopping Center, I'd be thrilled to have a Walmart or ANY shopping here besides pawn shops, thrifts stores, dollar stores, payday loan stores and taquerias.  A restaurant or two would be nice.  Short of driving all the way back across town Town East (which I dislike) is about it and I hate all my tax dollars going to Mesquite instead of Dallas.

RTGolden
RTGolden

There's a walmart and sam's club less than a 10 minute drive away from you at Buckner & 30.  Great little mexican restaurant in the pad sites right there at WalMart.  Some nice restaurants right in Casa view itself.  Great burger joint, Fat Daddy's, in Casa Linda.  Nice little Italian place up on the hill on Buckner.  WalMart neighborhood market on Gus Thomasson.  Fantastic pizza joint, Pizza Getti's, on Buckner just north of 30.  I lived in that area for several years and had everything I needed, if not all that I wanted, within a 5 minute drive or 15 minute walk from my apartment.

Diane Birdwell
Diane Birdwell

Compare the I-30 Wal-mart complex to the one at Cockrell Hill and I-30. It has ower end stores. Hell, I tried to buy running shoes at the Footlocker there, but it was all hip-hop, urban stuff. Loud music and ignorance of product lines to boot. That Mex restaurant closed by Wal-Mart.I had to threaten Wal-Mart with organizing a public show of protest and boycott to get their attention on how FILTHY the parking lot was, how dangerous it was and how crappy the store personnel were. When they met with us from BTHA, they mentioned they knew of the threatened public picketing, and I let them know it was me. They got a new guy in who helped modernize it, fire rude personnel and clean up the lot. We had TO BEG them to start prosecuting shoplifters, since it was literally drawing in a criminal atmosphere and killing our area. (They had a "less than $250" floor to not prosecute.)

 Casa View and Casa Linda are two DIFFERENT neighborhoods---I teach right there at BAHS. There are no office supply stores, no shoe stores, no good BBQ, etc... The Minyard's closed and El Rancho, hanging whole pig and all, took over. Three thrift stores, a cheap club, a tobacco shop, plasma center.... not helpful at all. Oates and Ferguson is a wasteland of cheap crud, but does have two mechanic shops that are decent. Crime is still high at Peavy/Buckner/John West. The strip mall that once had Tom Thumb's has gone totally low-end retail. There is also a strip club along I-30, but that does not help us. Wa-mart has NOT helped this area, but killed competition. What could have been a Home Depot is a mercado that sits empty four days a week.

Melissa
Melissa

Walmart is a grocery store, not a general merchandise store.  Los Rancheros is o.k., but other than that I certainly don't know what "nice" restaurants you are talking about in Casa View.  Again, none of the other places you talk about are in our neighborhood.  Dairyette is good.

Phelps
Phelps

To all the people talking about how easy it would be to take over one of the existing pads, have any of you done any research on how much it would cost to demolish those buildings, do proper remediation on the site, deal with existing easements, adapt or replace existing utilities, and all the other things that have to be done?

Because I'll bet you a Wal-Mart that Wal-Mart has already done those numbers and know that a new pad is cheaper -- or they would already be buying one of the existing pads.

RTGolden
RTGolden

I can't speak for the others who have mentioned the other pad sites, but I never said it would be easy.  I'd like to see it put on an already developed site, that is my preference, for what it's worth.  I want to know if the OPTION was explored by the City, before pushing for the new site.When looked at, the proposed site is not heavily wooded, and the lot to the south of it, if protected would more than make up for the few lost trees.  If WalMart has to denude a lot, they picked the one that would have the least impact, I'll give them that.

Green Source DFW
Green Source DFW

This issue is FAR more complicated than most posters are making it out to be. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that the damage cannot in this instance be mitigated. Yet environmentalism is meant to be a respect for "life" at its core. Not just the life of trees and endangered mammals, but of human beings as well. The people of South Dallas, due to a lack of options existing as NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN but due rather to numerous historical and economic factors wholly beyond their control, are forced to live harsher lives where something as simple as a nearby grocer is a rarity.

Into the picture comes Wal-Mart, offering to remedy this not out of the kindness of their heart but as an investment. It's one step, one grocer, where dozens of similar investments are needed. If, as many of the posters here suggest, the city dictates terms not favorable to Wal-Mart that effort to develop these communities becomes imperiled. In other words, it's hard enough to get developers to come to South Dallas, for a variety of reasons, without putting roadblocks in the way. This is especially true in an economy where meaningful investments are lagging. Thus, with all due respect what some posters (somewhat arrogantly) insist is a simple and "logical" choice is NOT that by any means. While respect for this grove of trees is vital for human health and sustainable progress, the choice in this case is either or. This is why Schutze is right. Once these areas are more developed they will have more leverage to insist on more sustainable development. This is no different than developing nations placing limited environmental restrictions on Foreign Direct Investments in capital. At the moment that leverage does not exist and anyone who believes it does need only research a tiny bit about the process of economic development both domestically and abroad.

SteveT
SteveT

One factor missing from this discussion:  If the city tree ordiance is enforced, Walmart must mitigate the damage it causes by removing the trees.

matilda of tuscany
matilda of tuscany

And I urge you to go look at the 3 sticks they have up at NW Highway and Skillman to replace the urban forest and creek they demolished there.

Travis Rex
Travis Rex

ah yes..the "urban forest"  that was full of bums and crackheads..

Paul
Paul

The forest canopy that existed at that apartment complex was so tall and dense that you could barely see the buildings.  I drove by their today and I think that you can see a few trees that have been planted.  Perhaps in 50 years there made be some shade.

In my opinion the same thing will be repeated at the new WalMart at 35 and Ledbetter.  I would be interested in seeing how many buildings that WalMart had abandoned and/or sold off then moved back into the same general area to build a new one.

Given the size of WalMart, their real estate policy does have a profound impact.

RTGolden
RTGolden

Right because everyone who shops at WalMart is mentally retarded.  We couldn't be shopping there because it works with our budget.  Keep in mind, not all of us have 'discretionary income', almost every cent is going toward a necessity.  Not everyone is well-paid to the point we can become arrogant douchebags wanting to impose our societal whims on the general population.

RTGolden
RTGolden

Thank you.  It does help.

Paul
Paul

Caliper - inch = diameter 12" above grade <= 8" dia; 4.5 ft above grade > 8" dia per City Code

or about 1,600 8" trees

hth

RTGolden
RTGolden

What, may I ask is a caliper inch of tree?  And how many actual trees does that 14,000 caliper inches equate to (a much more useful measurement).

Chris Danger
Chris Danger

Travis, Dallas has missed a major opportunity to actually grab that land for urban park purposes(i.e. hike/bike, urban forest, ect)and turn it into something special everyone could use. Instead it'll become another generic box store for a mentally retail retartded nation of slack-jaw mutants.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

I'm not disagreeing with anyone, but let's remove the idealism that Walmart should be obligated to find an existing retail property to remodel or rebuilt. They're not. You can't expect them to be. They have a right to pursue any property they want to, developed or undeveloped, zoned how they want or attempt to have it rezoned.

It's up to the municipality to encourage redevelopment by their own means, but don't expect the Walmarts of the world to go along with it unless it matches their criteria for a store and costs the same or less. I'm no fan of Walmart myself, but they're just wanting to build the store they want to build where they want to build for the budget they determined. This is on the city if they allow it.

Chris Danger
Chris Danger

Scruffy, I agree w/ ya, but its this city and its politics of idiocy that lack common sense when it comes to bringing responsible business in. Why is it other cities not only in TX, but nationwide, have laid into wal-mart to take responsibility for their actions, yet the idiots three in south dallas seem to play the pity card in their dealings. I give up on this city, too many idiots abound in its govermental structure...

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

Walmart should at least portray themselves as environmentally-friendly, and for a company as large as they are, they do seem to have some initiatives to accomplish that. Look at their McKinney store for an example. But if Dallas has a problem with that tract of land being developed as Walmart wants it to be, it's up to them to place restrictions on it or rezone it. Which would be detrimental to development, obviously.

South Dallas can't have it both ways. Walmart is only going to build if it's a solid investment for THEM. And the city or the residents who think Walmart is going to say "hey, this POS property across the street is way better than a build from scratch! Let's spend the time to draw plans to redevelop it when it will take longer, be more complicated, and cost more! Because we have all sorts of research saying the customers will spend more because they know we did this plot a solid!" are going to be sorely disappointed.

Plano's had the same problem--mismanaging retail growth in the first place, then mismanaging redevelopment of old, unappealing retail. And they whine about it, but if new retailers don't care, nothing is ever going to happen. And the bottom line for a retailer to care is the bottom line.

camarillobrillo
camarillobrillo

Tis would be nice to be a tree,then sun and rain is all i'd need,but I was cursed to walk and breathe,amongst men who live for greed,we're one most fight and toil to feed,amid the other bipedal of this breed,so what am I too do? or feel?,am I more sacred then a banana peel?,should I go decimate a forest to protect my will?,is my life worth more than a swath of trees?,tis would be nice if sun and rain were all I need!

Mountain Creek
Mountain Creek

To summarize Jim's article for those of you without much time: People in Brazil can't eat a UN report.  But UN reports have led to programs that have solved multiple 3rd-world problems.

Chris Danger
Chris Danger

Jim, while I normally agree with you, im going to have to take the opposite approach here. There's already pad space available in the area that can be demolished and reused (i.e. Big T) for a steal. Instead, the idiots three (Atkins, Caraway, Hill) decide its better to thrash an area of forest for their corporate "massas" and step n' fetch their way to a payday. I agree that this portion of Dallas needs good retail, but it also needs wise leadership, which is in short supply these days. 

Malc214
Malc214

Why the racist undertone on everything you post? Notice that out of the other 10 people that posted, you're always the one with the ugly undertone behind what you write. But I'm sure you're comfortable with your hateful self. Enjoy.

RTGolden
RTGolden

For anyone wondering what I meant by "Rational Discussion" up above, this isn't it.  Instead of debating the merits, or lack of them (if that is your position), you have now tried to turn the debate into a hotheaded racial conflict.These emotional issues are why nothing good ever gets done in Dallas, indeed, in much of the country.

Chris Danger
Chris Danger

Dude, Im the farthest thing from a racists you'll ever meet. My wife and in-laws are hispanic, my friends are literal UN mix of people from around the world and I stand up for people being taken advantage of by their own, hence my comments above, so dont even try to color me as something im not, thats both disrepectful and rude.

What I and many other people take issue with is the simple fact the idiots three I described above instead of looking for a proper solution to their issue are trying to take the easy way out. Theres tons of pad space in that area of town that could be used for redevelopment instead of that strech of forest. I also take exception with these so-called "leaders" whom really dont care for helping out their districts, only time they seem to get involved is when theres a financial benefit to them in some size shape or form. Its been a problem in So. Dallas politics for as long as I remember and will still occur until the voting populace finally gets off their backsides and elects responsible leadership..

Chris Danger
Chris Danger

Again malc ignoring the facts of the deal, there was property w/ readily available utils and access to build on in the area. Sure if the HOAs were for it, why not build it down it there. Until I see otherwise, Im still sticking w/ my thought process of So. Dallas Politics, which are not "racists", but realist truth be told.

Malc214
Malc214

When you suggest payoffs and whatever, you forgot the part where all the surrounding HOAs came and spoke in support of the store.

Oh and "most of my friends are (insert race)" is almost always a cover up or a way to suggest someone has perceived permissions to use the words you used in your first comment.

S Aten
S Aten

When I first moved to Dallas in the 1980's, Ledbetter at I-35 had a Kmart on the Southeast corner.  Across the freeway, there was a Target & a Sam's Club.   The Kmart because a low rent flea market, the Sam's Club became an alternative school & the Target left and moved south to Duncanville.    There was plenty of open space to build a Walmart Super Center without cutting the trees down.    All the folks concerned about trees were asking is that Walmart replace the trees they were cutting down.

The reason they are so few large stores in the area could be related to the high level of shoplifting and robberies that plague stores in that part of town.  JC Penney left because of shoplifting and so did Tuesday Morning to name a few.

Grumpy Demo
Grumpy Demo

Yeah that 's right there's no stores in poor neighborhoods cause black people steal too much.

But they do have a great sense of rhythm, right?

Montemalone
Montemalone

That's the thing that never gets mentioned in the "we need stores in the southern sector".I grew up in the OC, back when West Cliff mall had a grocery store, M.E.Moses, and lots of other shops, there was a Sanger Harris off the Freeway, Wynnewood was vibrant, etc.The stores left when the cost of doing business exceeded profit.Stores are in business to make money.

yeahIsaidthat
yeahIsaidthat

Hey Monte, you and I were neighbors back then. My dad had his office at WestCliff, I worked there myself. You know why all those developments went south. It's because of the city did nothing to encourage continued proper growth, white flight, white flight, white flight, and oh yeah, and white flight. All due to the poor management of DISD that started in 1972 and continues to this day. Don't forget Redbird Mall. 40 years later and we continue to tinker with a 'machine' that is broken. Until you get the REAL strong mayor government, this will all continue.So for those of you who are into archives, get a load of this from The Dallas Observer:http://www.dallasobserver.com/...

Melissa
Melissa

My uncle (actually great uncle) was a doctor and had his office at Westcliff.  I lived on Wilbur for a while when I was little.

Montemalone
Montemalone

I think I was on one of those flights around December '75.They were crowded.

Ben
Ben

In business to make money? Silly! The city council seems to be moving towards a Kyoto Protocol of sorts for Southern Dallas. By edict.

claytonauger
claytonauger

Some of us stood with these communities when they fought the lead smelters that were creators of a certain kind of job in South Dallas. We stand with them now in saying Dallas residents who live south of the Trinity should not have to choose between trees and jobs. The latest trend in DFW suburbia is tree-infested and green-spaced squares and central business districts. Don't impose an outdated 80's idea of "growth" on South Dallas that makes trees and green space somehow less economically-viable than places like Southlake and Grapevine are discovering them to be.

Phelps
Phelps

Don't impose an outdated 80's idea of "growth" on South Dallas that makes trees and green space somehow less economically-viable than places like Southlake and Grapevine are discovering them to be.

Don't impose your fantasy land ideas on the hard reality of economics.  Southlake and Grapevine can move to the sort of developments they have now because the suburbs did 80s style grown in the 80s.  The reality is that trees and green space like that are a luxury item that Pleasant Grove and Oak Cliff can't afford -- yet.

Let them pass through the 80s style growth, and they will get to the 21st century level -- and probably do it in much less than 30 years.

Grumpy Demo
Grumpy Demo

" trees and green space"

No racism there.

El Rey
El Rey

It might be the medication I am on (it is), but I started reading this right after reading the Patrick Michaels blog, and I actually believed I was still reading his latest article on intersection density and thriving neighborhoods.

With that behind me... I drove down Buckner the other day to scout out what all of the hub-bub was about. I came away with the distinct feeling that the neighborhood needed to solve the problem of food scarcity and underemployment before worrying about a small grove of trees. Wal-Mart should have stepped up and offered to plant trees throughout the parking lot and along the boulevard. They should also invest in permeable pavement to account for the increase in impervious structures on the land. If they treated this store like they did the megastore in Frisco, I think some of us environmental types would pipe down about the trees. But I guess that is also a question of income disparity versus investment.

george gobel
george gobel

As usual, you have it 180-degrees incorrect, based, as always, on your manifesto of "sticking it to anyone better off," instead of the employment of logic or the analysis of facts.

A collapsed environment means no people at all, be they rich, poor, or whatever.  Preserving the environment clearly comes before economic balancing, which you yourself point out is a subjective goal at best.  If the fire's coming toward your hut and mine, are you really going to stand there and keep bitching that my hut's bigger than yours, or are you going to help me put out the fire? 

Also, environmental impact is entirely a scientific question.  Nothing about it is moral, social, or political.  (People want to make it appear so, to advance their own agendas, but it is not.)  Ask a molecule of CO2 or an oil leak who it votes for, or whether it has a conscience, or if it's aiming its ill effects toward a particular socio-economic group. 

Anyone who's alive is infinitely more wealthy than everyone, combined, who's ever walked the earth but is now dead.  It's as simple as that.  I may have more than you for the few decades we're lucky enough to be here.  Deal with it.  I'm rich compared to some, poor compared to others.  We'll both be gone soon enough.

I'm beginning to believe the Observer pays you to write the most outlandish nonsense you can think of, just to roil the waters.  Please turn them down next time they ask.

RTGolden
RTGolden

I don't think there is a 180, or a 360 degrees on this issue.  It's more of a chicken or egg question.  To flip the script on your first point, go visit the places in the world where poverty is deepest and most despairing, you'll find the environment is often held in disregard, and always viewed as hostile.  Environmentalism is a pursuit of luxury.  No matter how you wish to make it not so, people living in poverty just don't give two shits about having enough trees, unless those trees produce something they can sell.  Primitive man caused deforestation and desertification as surely as modern man does, he just was doing it for hunting and subsistence farming instead of development.You'll find that I'm often at odds with Jim, but on this article Jim has hit the nail on the head.  You obviously didn't read it with any sort of an eye for detail, or you would have noticed this line

Solving economic inequity is the first step in saving the ecosystem. Otherwise, forget about it.I'm not saying that's smart.You can't save the environment by scattershooting proposals into the air and hoping to plug the hole in the ozone.  You have to start somewhere.  Jim has correctly surmised that giving a large population of the planet the economic ability to contemplate the fate of the environment, versus keeping them in a constant struggle against it, will go a long way toward healing.

mynameisURL
mynameisURL

Some folks can't see the forest for the trees. (Shutze) Some folks can't see the trees for the forest. (You)

The very fact that you are expending energy to type these words makes your assertion that "environmental impact" is *entirely scientific* complete balderdash.

If people are talking about it, it is a moral, social and political affair. Mother nature doesn't really give a shit, she'll do just fine after we ruin this place for ourselves.

Sooner or later Gaia will shake us off like an unpleasant toe fungus.

Phelps
Phelps

A collapsed environment means no people at all, be they rich, poor, or whatever.

We're talking about a WalMart.  We're not talking about a Dr. Evil drill to release molten mag-ma.  

 If the fire's coming toward your hut and mine, are you really going to stand there and keep bitching that my hut's bigger than yours, or are you going to help me put out the fire?  

If you have a hut and I don't, it it really moral to tell me that I still have to keep a water bucket around?  Is it moral to require me to have smoke detectors, an impact study, remediation from the last hut and a sustainably built tree sloth overpass before I can build a dirt floor hut for my family?

Also, environmental impact is entirely a scientific question.  Nothing about it is moral, social, or political.  (People want to make it appear so, to advance their own agendas, but it is not.)  Ask a molecule of CO2 or an oil leak who it votes for, or whether it has a conscience, or if it's aiming its ill effects toward a particular socio-economic group.  

Science doesn't magically turn itself into policy.  More importantly, real science teaches us one major lesson -- for every cause, there is an effect.  For every action, there is a reaction.  It is up to us to make judgment calls.  Some of those judgment calls come down to, "do we want where we live to be even prettier, or do we want to feed more poor people?"  And quite a lot of us pick "prettier please."  Do we want to preserve the condor population, or do we want to prevent millions of deaths from malaria in Africa?  "Condors, please. They're so majestic!"  (Never mind that when the real science is done, it turns out that DDT has nothing to do with condor egg shells.)

We're talking about a handful of trees.  We can make a dramatic improvement in the lives of a lot of poor people at the expense of a few trees.

And yet people like you decide that you like pretty trees more than poor people.

Urbandweller203
Urbandweller203

There is no way  Walmart is making a dramatic improvement in a lot of poor people lives. When you make such  bold  statement, you should use examples to support your statement. They are a minimum wage labor inducing corporation that buy the bulk of their products from China. Less than 10 percent of the employees will come from that community. A hand full of trees will leave a bald spot in this community. Further more, watch the property value drop...drop....drop....

The issue has never been about Walmart coming to Southern Dallas, there is a Walmart less than 5 miles away. The fact is,  there are so many places in that same area to RE-USE. Walmart is just shitting in the middle of the street, making a stink, when they can just go into the house and use the toilet.

As stated in my earlier comments, lets talk 10 years from now when the store is a big ass empty box in the middle of a inner city Forest.

Phelps
Phelps

There is no way  Walmart is making a dramatic improvement in a lot of poor people lives.

Poor people don't have much money.  That is why they are poor.  They were poor before Walmart got there.  When Walmart gets there, they can buy more stuff with the money they have, which means they have a better quality of life, or they can buy the same stuff they bought before, but have more money left over to start building financial security with by saving it.  (In all fairness, though, if they already have the habit of saving, their poverty was probably temporary anyways.)

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/0... 

http://www.americanprogress.or... 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opi... 

DISD Teacher
DISD Teacher

How awful of WalMart to ask the poorest to choose between trees, beauty, health OR a store.

WalMart has so much excess it could provide both.

It chooses not to.  It chooses to wreck a habitat to eke out a few more bucks while hiding behind the poor and unrepresented.

RTGolden
RTGolden

All you really have to say is 'Rational Discussion'.  Take the emotion out of it.  Weigh the pros and cons, ask ourselves what we can live with, and what we can't live without.  After moving from the frenzied retail nightmare of Far North Dallas to the poor So. Dallas burb of Balch Springs, I appreciate the 20 or so glorious oaks on my lot.  I'll eventually have to build a better house on it, but not until I figure out the best way to save as many of those trees as possible.  However, I know I will lose one or two of them in the process.I happen to be in a haven as far as south dallas is concerned.  I have 4 grocery stores, including a walmart, within a short drive from my house.  Get farther west though, and it does get ridiculous trying to find someplace to buy bread and milk.  And a Whole Foods or Central market isn't the answer, most of us who live down here can't afford to buy our groceries from those stores.  I agree with some of the posters the other day, let the walmart come in, but find another, already developed and abandoned or abandonable plot, and put it there.

jfpo
jfpo

"I agree with some of the posters the other day, let the walmart come in, but find another, already developed and abandoned or abandonable plot, and put it there."

Absolutely. In the earlier thread, a couple of people tried to explain to me why this wasn't possible with the all but empty properties across the street, but it still doesn't make sense.

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...