Leaderboard

I appreciate that you took the time to point out aspects of the ordinance to which you object. No, I have not read the ordinance, and it seems likely that I'd misunderstand it even if I did. I do see your point that the language used in the ordinance grants powers which may be abused. This, among other posts, leads me to believe that it is overreaching and poorly written. Yes, I'd like to know the truth - truth being a relative term. Not everyone agrees as to what this ordinance truly means, or should mean. If someone's arguments are inconsistent, pointing out these inconsistencies weakens their stance. While I understand your frustration when you believe the truth has been misrepresented, please understand that calling someone a liar isn't a persuasive rebuttal. I thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts. As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word. We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me. Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

I don't think you really do. We have piles of evidence of the Mayor and Lovell and Gaffrick ramming this ordinance through. We have piles of documents showing the 3 Heights districts were improperly created using city owned property to achieve their "51%". We have dozens of examples that the city can and already has used the ordinance to prevent reasonable renovations to homes. We have evidence that the ordinance has stunted property values, and further, that this is what a core group of "preservationists" want. If you really wanted to believe us, you would. s3mh has never presented a shred of evidence in this or the Walmart thread to support her outlandish and manufactured claims. Watch the council videos. Show up to the meetings. You will see the charade. I will not post specifics here, since the South Heights district is still pending and I don't want to give away any strategy, but remember that I own a 91 year old bungalow. I signed the original historic district petition long before s3mh ever moved to the Heights. Ask yourself why a bungalow owner who is renovating his home and signed the original petition is now so vehemently against the new ordinance. I am told that my proposed future renovations (most of them, anyway) would actually fit within the new ordinance. Why do you think I am still opposed? If you guessed that the new ordinance is gutting property values so that the money invested in preserving my bungalow will never be recouped, you'd be correct.

Ha. Right I think the most encouraging part of that article is that the tower is 91% leased.

Article in the Chron today about Phoenicia Most interesting is the quote at the end from Finger... total speculation, but nice to hear nonetheless Either The Finger Companies or another developer will announce a new residential tower within a year given the increased activity in east downtown, he predicted. "If you look south of here, there are so many parking lots that could be developed. I want everyone to send me a thank you note when they start building here," he joked.

Oh whoops!! Posted in the wrong thread. What a n00b lol Edit: Can a moderator please delete this post and move my post about the new bridge to the Brays Bayou thread? Sorry for being a dumbass

Obviously we need to build a new stadium.