TGM

I'd hate to own a home in the 4th ward. Between the apathetic deferred maintenance of churches to brick streets, the residents who lived there all their lives not caring, now suddenly care, but want someone else to do the leg work or foot the bill.

Don't deflect, and don't be modest. You guys are doing something really *special* here.

Is that you Jim?

Active neighbors that follow-up observed criminal activity with calls to the police are what has kept the park a reasonably safe area. The homeless, pan-handlers, drug-dealers, and other undesired elements will hangout there, the neighborhood just needs to decide what level of "tolerance" or "co-existence" they wish to have about them.

The point isn't what any individual house is being marketed for. The point is that the average sale price is up 58% over one year ago in Boulevard Oaks, the highest increase of 18 high-end neighborhoods, and up 29% in Southampton. And that the average sale time is 25 and 23 days, respectively "faster than many [other neighborhoods]".

They'll claim that the towers arms do not reach Boulevard Oaks thus the reason for the increase in sale price.

Well I'll be darned that giant building with arms has not hurt property values.

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/09/home-prices-near-ashby-high-rise-skyrocket/?cmpid=businesshcat

Armed robbery at the credit union on 19th yesterday afternoon:

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=12409

The suspect looks like the love child of Rick James and Elvis.

I have a neighbor that sometimes leaves his vehicle on the street overnight. He never leaves anything in it, valuable or not. But, he always leaves the doors unlocked.

So far, he's not been robbed or vandalized.

I have a childhood friend who voluntarily gave his lunch money to the school bully, and you know what, he never once was beaten up. Granted he is now an alcoholic who still lives with parents, but it's better to roll over and submit, right?

I guess they didn't get the memo that 19th street is a walkable paradise since they left in a Buick.

This event highlights what the suburbs are already going through (and will continue to see increase). It's a fact that lower income families are flooding the suburbs as land in the city gets more expensive. This pattern is occurring everywhere around the country (and has already done so in Europe). Spring was a nice HS back when I was at Cy-Creek, but it sounds like they have a serious gang problem now. Give it another 10-15 years and I believe you'll see problems even crop up in the Woodlands, Sugar Land, Cinco Ranch type areas as well.

I totally agree. People always cite better schools when moving to the suburbs, but what now? Will they move even further out? At a certain point it makes more sense to stay in the city and swing for a private school or try to get into a charter school if you're faced with a 2hr commute each way.

2001 Lincoln LS - I can pretty much sketch the offenders just by knowing what they drove. Political correctness has run amok!

Based on my parents electrical nightmare experience on theirs I would say the suspects picked the wrong getaway car.

How is there not a detailed description of the robbers, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Because the real crime that everyone is seeking to avoid is not armed robbery, it's the possibility that a reporter might be called a racist. Nevermind the fact that assuming that a group matching a suspect's ethnicity would automatically find fault with using identifying descriptors is racist in itself.

Most of these reports have less to do with catching criminals and more to do with formatting pages with dummy text.

Alleyways can also pose a problem. It's easy to get in and out without a great deal of attention. HPD is a calls for service driven organization, so keep calling. I would also recommend having a townhall type event every time something makes the news. (Students robbed on 11th would be a good example)

Looks like Miss Parker's feeding ordinance has its days numbered.

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/federal-judge-rules-that-dallas-homeless-feeding-ordinance-violates-ministries-religious-freedoms.html/

Everyone that stands to benefit politically is patting themselves on the back about the opening of the Travis Street Plaza, the 192 room complex for homeless and disabled veterans. What's not to like, right? It all sounds good during the ribbon cutting ceremony, but the reality is that area will go down based on the scope-creep (intentional or otherwise) of Cloudbreak. The original Midtown complex was promised to only house homeless vets, but then they opened it up to any homeless person despite taking money from the city and promising it was only for homeless vets.

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/08/midtown-housing-project-opens/?cmpid=businesshcat

Whew guys . . . cool it. We're not discussing some life or death issue here.

Such as....is it walkable? If so, does the restaurant have a shoe tree adequate enough to handle the 6pm rush hour, or will patrons be forced to leave their shoes on neighborhood sidewalks resulting in a decrease in available walking space and a backup of patrons onto the aging and inadequate sidewalk infrastructure?

Good op-ed piece on 380's in general:

"In principle, using public funds to reimburse wealthy developers and corporations for building infrastructure that their projects require to be successful is bad public policy. Those who will make the profits should also bear the expense of development."

Penned by the director of RUHD, as if that was a surprise.

I'm going to start RUFP, Responsible Use of Forest Products to protest the numbers of trees that could have been better served in the manufacture of toilet-paper than in the pages used for this op-ed.

it seems your value could only go up more because there would then be less camelbacks for people who cannot live in less than 2k feet, thus making your home more valuable.

No need to be sanctimonious, the HAHC talent scout has gone home for the evening.

Is 2000 sqf the new benchmark of historic preservation virtue and decency? Is this number inclusive of ground floor retail or mixed-useness? If I'm not mistaken the Walton's are not in compliance. Goodnight John boy.

Maybe the solution is to pick up a ton of that cheap restaurant plastic ivy and weave it into the walls and bridge. Act soon on this one before the historic folks get involved.

But the only way to mount a compelling attack on historic preservation is to inflate it into something it isn't. That has been the MO from the beginning for opponents with their flyers warning about crumbling houses and paint color.

I am 100% in favor of historic preservation. Shocking huh?

The difference is that I think the free market does a better job of rewarding historic preservation than a group of ever changing committee members whose only real goal is climbing up the next step of the political ladder.

Since we're using the classic car analogy it is easy to see that a vehicle in demand, even if its a basket case example can still command a decent amount of money for someone willing to restore it. Take for instance this 1957 Porsche Speedster that was up to $80k at the time the article was written. http://bringatrailer.com/2013/07/08/socal-yard-find-1957-porsche-speedster/ The 1990s Ford Probe that was in front of me this morning, not so much.

At times perfection is the enemy of good enough, and when you have someone cash in hand willing to spend their money to rehab a house you don't quibble over something stupid like windows, doors, and additional rooms.

When I grew up in the 1980's I remember always seeing cars with "Question Authority" bumper stickers. I think we need more of that today, because I see abuse all the way down to the "petty power" levels of government we see in the HAHC. I jest with comments like politburo, and workers parties, but saying the historic character of the neighborhood (community interest) trumps a private property owners right to modify his home fits into the framework of the collective over the individual. Add to this the roving bands of busy bodies on their snitch patrols, filling the role of modern day party block captains reporting on their neighbors anti-state activities.

I am responding to TGM. Blame him for having crazed libertarian views.

I'll take the blame on that one, but I feel obligated to assign some of the responsibility/blame to those before me that also held the crazy view that less governmental intrusion be it Federal, State, or Municipal is actually a good thing.

Busy-body tyrants like s3mh are always at the front of any march or protest with a big sign exclaiming how they want government out of their bedroom. Now when it comes to any other room, structure, or building material s3mh is all about government telling you what you can and cannot do.

I guess the only way to win in his twisted world is to declare every room a bedroom.

I await your long response typed from your soon-to-be carpal-tunneled hands.

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority.

I'm sure his knowledge of the Lada, GAZ, ZIL, and the Trabby vehicles borders on the encyclopedic.

A life was lost obtaining the video below. In it RUDH is frantically preparing for the next evil capitalist builder protest.

But, here is the part that smashes your paranoid "committee" ramblings.

I suggest you walk a few miles in the shoes of those that have gone before the HAHC seeking their approval to improve their property. Kafka comes to mind.

adults can deal with these issues and work them out in a free democratic country without having to put on a tin foil hat and rant about how gubment gonna git yuh propity.

I agree, let's put the HAHC to an honest vote.

Of course, I would oppose takings for purely private use. But I would not want to take away all eminent domain rights and make landowners micro-monarchs in society.

The only micro-monarchs are those that sit on the HAHC.

We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

So according to you if my committee viewed your surrounding area as deficient in any particular amenity that would be beneficial to the welfare of the community, say for instance cheap groceries, diapers, etc, I could exclaim that the communities needs and access to these goods and services trump your right to remain whole and undisturbed on your property. Got it. So based on this "greater good" philosophy, and strengthened by Kelo v. City of New London I could seize your property through eminent domain on the behalf of say...Walmart, so that the less fortunate in your "food desert" can benefit. Right... But you would be okay with that because you hold an enlightened, rather than an "extremist libertarian" view.

If the needs of the community are paramount over the individual right to property please tell me again why you are opposed to Walmart? You should be happy if they opened in the neighborhood, and even more ecstatic if they seized your property to do so.

And it is fun how the argument against preservation always goes so quickly from the legitimate debate about what should be protected and to what extent to extreme hyperbole comparing preservation to some great affront to human liberty. Dark ages? Oh please. It is like the conservative attempts to claim that environmentalism began with the Nazis. Just pathetic.

Property rights, property ownership are fundamental to a free society. Where is the hyperbole in that?

I'll avoid your "Nazi" hyperbole, and simply say that your very Statist view is that one's private property is actually "community property". You believe that something is owed to a neighborhood when someone purchases a home. You believe that non-owners of a property should have a greater say than the person that bore the financial cost to purchase it. You believe that this collection of neighbors has a greater right over the individual because they know what is best for him. It is the community view you find to be legitimate, not the "ignorant beliefs" of the individual, the human, the actual property owner.

I love this rhetorical argument of what is or is not "responsible development" as Statists (in this case s3mh the Statist-Preservationist) cannot really answer it in the affirmative or negative without contradicting themselves in the process. This is because in doing so it highlights the great contradiction of all Statists beliefs regarding human nature.

The Statist belief is that humans are inherently too ignorant or unenlightened to be left to their own devices. Based on this view they believe individuals need the State(substitute HAHC, RUDH,etc in this case) to think for them, thus saving the individual (and all other "idiots" like them) from themselves.

So despite being of the same species as their fellow men, they should somehow be given power through committees such as the HAHC over their fellow men? Do these Statists/Preservationists that back such things as the HAHC honestly believe that only virtuous humans are allowed to hold the reigns of HAHC power? (as if these same humans are somehow magically transformed into the devine by merely wielding the power of the position)

Yet somehow they still believe that these ignorant denizens, the ones too idiotic to govern their own affairs, are yet somehow capable of voting for others to govern for them. Small minded, yet able to somehow earn wages to buy the home, but still so ignorant of what's best for it that it requires the help of boards and committees. And yet the committee comprised of humans

All of these, and more are really just shades of the same contradictions in Statists/Preservationists rhetoric. "All humans are idiots, except for us."

Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities.

The Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are surrounded by examples older and newer construction. These Art Deco-era buildings did not hurt their predecessors and nor did the newer, more modern buildings that surrounds them hurt their architectural symbolism.

What you are wanting is exactly what most preservationists look down their noses at: uniform conformity, made up of homes of one particular era. Cities and residential areas are like the shelves of a library, you have books of different colors, thicknesses, heights,etc. Fortunately librarians don't require authors submit their book plans, binding type, jacket color, and size before being allowed on the shelves.

In geometry terms, history is a ray, not a line. What is deemed historical, is dependent on how far down the tradjectory you are. At one point everything will be historical, and some day everything will be condemned and bulldozed.

The reoccurring theme of every one of your posts is control, control, and more control. Do you really believe its normal and healthy to go around telling people what they can and cannot do? Is it normal to request more governmental intrusion into our private lives and choices?

What is funny is that the Victorian age was an era of rapid industrialization, a renewed focus on privacy, and the rise of the middle class. Modern Victorians want modernization, privacy, and affordable housing. Your tyrannical, controlling beliefs about what people should be allowed to do in their personal matters and decisions are more Dark Ages than Victorian.