Furious Jam

I am opposed to entire houses being used as short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. They are unlawful hotels and absolute nuisances: Hurricanes Couldn’t Destroy Galveston’s Spirit. The Vacation Rental Boom Just Might. ‘Chronic party houses’ on Airbnb and Vrbo have become hot topics in Houston HOA disputes Inside the Bro-tastic Party Mansions Upending a Historic Austin Community Parties, dumped deer heads, dented fence: trials of living next to short-term rental

These are entire houses he's building for short-term rentals - they are particularly infamous for house parties as opposed to apartments or condos. Anyhow, I'm glad you like his plans because, guess what?, he's got more coming. Per an interview he gave to Houstonia a few weeks ago, he's already got 10 lots inside the loop and he also wants to "move out into more popular suburbs like Cypress, Katy, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land". I think you'll feel differently if one of these opens up next to you.

On February 21, 2023, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle, former Houston Texans player Darryl Sharpton, Jr. revealed that he intends on building 6 homes in the neighborhood of Montrose to serve as short-term rentals under his hospitality brand “The Sharpton”. Lots located at 2302 & 2308 Dunlavy Street are among the Montrose properties either directly or indirectly owned by him. Mr. Sharpton recently filed a replat application with the City of Houston to subdivide 2308 Dunlavy Street under the name Bria Place and preparatory to building the first of his short-term rental homes. His proposed replat contains a representation that Mr. Sharpton will limit his homes to single-family residential activity, but that does not comport with his true plans as revealed in his interview. The Sharpton houses will not be single-family residences but rather hotels both in fact and as a matter of law. Section 28-201 of the City of Houston’s Code of Ordinances defines a “Hotel” as being any “building or buildings in which the public may obtain transient sleeping accommodations” and expressly includes “tourist homes” and “houses” in the definition. That same section also defines a “Residence” as being a “permanent building or structure containing habitable rooms for nontransient occupancy”. The transient nature of short-term rentals makes The Sharpton’s true purpose incompatible with a single-family residential restriction. However Mr. Sharpton cannot honestly ask the City to permit hotels on his Montrose properties because they all directly adjoin residential properties. Section 28-202(a)(3) of the City’s Code specifically states that the “property line of the tract on which a hotel... is situated may not abut at any point any other tract that is in whole or in part residential in character”. With regard to his Dunlavy lots in particular, they are situated in a block which is entirely residential and together they adjoin 11 single-family residential homes. Those 11 homeowners have formed a coalition to oppose Mr. Sharpton’s duplicitous plan to seek residential replatting and permits for de facto hotels. We hereby call on like-minded citizens to join our opposition by registering to speak at the City’s next Planning Commission meeting, to be held on Thursday, March 30th at 2:30 p.m., where Mr. Sharpton’s replat will be considered. Attendance instructions are available at houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/commiss_plan.html. Speakers must register prior to 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 29th. This is an opportunity for all residents to push back against the short-term rentals that have blighted so many neighborhoods. Please stand with us, demand that the City enforce its own laws, and ensure that Mr. Sharpton doesn’t tackle your neighborhood next for his hotel brand.

FYI, the District is one of the sponsors of the Montrose Crawl. The Crawl generated about $63K in additional revenue for Montrose businesses, plus a nearly $5K donation for the Houston Area Women's Center. And a whole bunch of people got sh!tfaced and it was way awesome. Can your management district manage that?

Turning it into a hotel makes way too much sense. How cool would it be to have a hotel with the ultimate atrium? You could actually extend the MetroRail into it, so people could just ride to downtown, the medical center, the Galleria, wherever.

Hi John, I started the valet parking rant, so I appreciate your offering a response. Now that I know that Crave only has valet parking on Friday and Saturday nights, my wife and I will be sure to visit you guys on another night. Nevertheless, we were ready to eat at your restaurant on a Friday night at 10, but we were put off by all of the blocked off spaces. And because I did not observe a single vehicle in your lot at that time, I have to assume that other potential patrons were also turned off by all of the unwelcoming cones. I'm worried that your policy may be costing you diners on critical nights and creating an overall negative first impression. I'm a real estate attorney, and I know from personal experience how parking can be a major issue for tenants. I respect that you're trying to make the best of a difficult situation. But that being said, forcing everyone to valet is an atypical solution. Much more common are the warning/towing signs you see all over the city. The standard sign provides that if your vehicle is parked while you are not (or you are no longer) patronizing the business which has provided the parking, then your vehicle is subject to being towed at your expense. Granted, monitoring who is properly parked and who is not can be more of an art than a science. Your host(ess) might need to keep an eye out. Adding a 2 hour limit to the signs would be a good idea as well. You'll still have some people who will beat the system, but I suspect most would simply pay to park somewhere else rather than risk ruining their evening by having their vehicle towed. All that being said, it does strike me as somewhat disingenuous that you profess a desire to preserve parking for diners while freely admitting to selling your spaces at $15 a piece to non-diners. John, that's like trying to have your sushi and eat it too. In theory, you could sell the entire lot to club-goers and shut out everyone else. I know there's the idea that someone who comes back to their vehicle from a club is a potential diner, and I recognize the benefit to you of selling that person both a space and a meal. And that's fine. But now we come back to Musicman's statement that, on Friday and Saturday nights at least, club-goers are the "better" customers that you are catering to. Given the real alternative of using warning/towing signs, it seems that by employing your valet system instead, you are tacitly admitting that on those particular nights club-goers are your preferred customers, and that you want to be in the business of selling parking to them as much as you are in the sushi business. Again, that's free enterprise and your choice to make - I don't have a problem with it. All the same, be up front with the choice instead of coming on to this board and claiming that your "intentions are not to make any person better than the other". Obviously you've made a conscious decision to cater to club-goers on Friday and Saturday nights. As for me personally, when I get hungry I'm looking for a restaurant and not a parking concern like the one Crave operates on Friday and Saturday nights. Therefore, I won't be your customer on those nights, and I suspect that many other people will similarly pass you by. Once more, that is the result of a business decision on your part, one that you may end up reevaluating in the future. The foregoing notwithstanding, my wife and I will stop by during the week sometime soon. We're right around the corner from Crave and we'd like to see you and many other Midtown businesses succeed. I wish you all the best.

My wife and I considered dining here last Friday night. It was about 10 at night and the parking lot was basically empty. However, every single space was blocked off with orange cones for the valets. Ridiculous. Valets should not be allowed to block off spaces right in front of a restaurant. If that is the case, you're basically charging for parking. Go on, just admit it. If parking is really a problem for Crave, they need to acquire off-site parking, and have the valets earn their tips by going back and forth instead of just camping out right in front of the restaurant. And no, this is not just about a couple of bucks. I don't want a valet driving my car if I can avoid it. I feel like I need to lock up my radar detector and my iPod before he gets in, and I worry about my laptop in the trunk. Then you always wonder how carefully he's parking your car and the cars next to it if he's in a rush. There's also the idea that I'm paying someone for a convenience that is not really a convenience at all. If the valets just park my car in one of the spaces they've blocked off right out front, I guarantee it takes me more time to hand my car off to the valet and tip him than it would for me to simply pull into the space myself. Above all, seeing every single space blocked off sends an unfriendly message to potential customers. Would Crave put orange cones in front of its doors and not allow anyone in unless they tipped a doorman first? The effect of blocking off all of the parking spaces is just the same. Sorry, but no Crave Sushi for us until they unblock their parking lot.

That AMC on Dunvale is always flooded with obnoxious teens - the Edwards on the Katy Frwy too. I'm not talking about just another theater. I'm talking about a premium experience where, for a few dollars more, you could have better food, seats, service, etc. Ex: a theater that blocks cell phone signals.

Since it is the Galleria, what about a premium movie theater? Beer, wine, 20 kinds of popcorn, wide seats, reserved seats, etc. Add an extra dollar to every ticket to get ushers stationed in every theater and have them crack down on screaming kids, cell phones, people talking, etc.