Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Lost_In_Translatio

  • Rank

  1. Don't forget that the developer could accomodate the code if his plans were scaled back, so its a battle between two NIMBY's and a stubborn developer.
  2. No doubt, but the land that really matters is the 32 feet of frontage beyond the dead end. The real solution would be a fair price to mosely for it, but of course he doesn't want the development at all, so its unlikely to happen. The alternate solution is for the developer to scale back his development so he can accomodate the require code requirements within his property or find another entrance. He doesn't want to do that, so we're at an impasse of two groups attempting to get the city to give them each their way. I have very little sympathy for Mosley not wanting this development at all
  3. You're confusing the issue. I'm not debating the existing easment. I'm saying the city didn't call for an easement past the dead-end in the plat (see HCAD). There is no indication that the city plans to extend 5th street beyond (otherwise the easment would exist). So its not squatting nor is it free land. If they widened the road to 70 feet, they would still not have the easement beyond the dead end without emininent domaining the land. You make it sound like we're all just sitting on city land and should expect to be bulldozed if we're anywhere near a potential road pathway. No, the ci
  4. If they can meet the code requirements by utilizing Frazier St., that seems to be the obvious choice. And hypocrite Mosley owns enough of the edge of the dead end that means the city has to choose between meeting the code by eminent domaining his property, granting a variance that may cause problems with access, or denying the permit for the work. It sounds like the developer has other options (that while they're meeting more citizen opposition, they have a better case for the Frazier st. option) so I imagine this will continue to ping pong back and forth. The city should just follow the gu
  5. So everyone that owns land behind a dead end is "squatting"? Why didn't they plat out a ROW then? Probably because they didn't see a need for it. Don't blame landowners for city lack of foresightedness.
  6. Those rules do prohibit landowners from developing their property, or have you not seen those Priuses handing out tags. The city doesn't take violating their rules lightly, so why argue that they should lightly waive their rules whenever someone asks them to? If I wanted to build a foot closer than required to my neighbor, imagine how far my variance request would go. I don't generate tax revenue, so they'd laugh my request right into the trash bin. But throw potential revenue their way and inconveniencing citizens becomes a very acceptable loss.
  7. There is no logical reason to block this development, other than the reasons required in the variance requests (assuring adequate ingress/egress, emergency vehicle access, etc). In any case, if it passes, its the city's call and the courts can decide any lawsuit. The company should not complain if the city denies its request, but Mosely probably doesn't have much of a case if they approve it. In any case, it doesn't affect me, so I guess why should I care.
  8. Whats the compelling reason to grant it? Property taxes? Is that enough to justify? Is that always enough to justify it?
  9. Of course the city would have to pay for that piece of land and endure outrage from Mr. Mosley. Depends on what sort of headache they want for choosing a developer over a land owner. It would solve the variance issue. Anyway, whatever the decision, it really needs to be a fair application of the rules and not preferential to one party over another.
  10. On HCAD, the city shows its 70' ROW ending before 615-0015. I'll grant you they could condemn his front yard and go through, but right now they don't show themselves to be in possession of that parcel.
  11. So can the developer meet the intent of the ordinances or not. Not pertaining to the economics of it, but can he physically achieve compliance? If not, I can see you point and can understand the variance, but if the point is that he bought the land knowing he would need a variance to make the project economically feasible, it sounds like it was a poor decision on his part and the city is not responsible for bailing him out. Now if they decide its for the benefit of the city that they utilize their condemnation powers to make the variance, well the courts can take that up between the city a
  12. Are they now? Do you have a link showing how they are doing this?
  13. Only affects 8 people. So things are cool because only 8 people (none of whom are city councilers) are affected. Obviously 8 is an insignificant number and should be ignored on the basis of "OMG, more tax money". Now if their own "guidelines" indicated that the impact would be minimal in all cases, sure, why not, but this company is asking them to set aside their rules and "oh, only 8 people will have to deal with the consequences". Yeah, but those are 8 individuals who are playing by the rules of the city. Why does the city get to shove them and their concerns aside and violate its own r
  14. I'll let you know the next time the city comes to my house and tells me I'm in violation of a "guideline". They sure come down hard on individuals whose work impacts even fewer people. I don't see why the city council should make rules and then break them all they want when someone with alot of money shows up. Tax base is a red herring because you can't guarantee the success of a project just based on giving them what they want. The city should take a neutral stance and follow the rules it sets or get rid of the rules. The way you describe it, you seem in favor of corporate socialism, all
  • Create New...