Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About suzerain

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. I think it is called The Mix at Midtown. Looked pretty interesting to me this morning. I came on the board to see if there was any info on it, but have not found it yet. I think it is called The Mix at Midtown. Looked pretty interesting to me this morning. I came on the board to see if there was any info on it, but have not found it yet.
  2. Look at the space on the far right.
  3. The crosspoint properties website shows a starbucks as a tenant on the first floor.
  4. Completely. I understand its meaning. It is a shame it is so easily forgotten under the much more popular "The constitution is not a suicide pact." bleh. I am a big fan of the antifederalists. As I said, I am quite the libertarian. I agree that you have the right to chose which laws to obey and which to ignore, but, as you have said, one must accept the consequences. I know that if someone ever did something to hurt my child they would have to deal with me directly, but in acting independent of the government, I accept that I will face punishment for my actions. See, we basically agree with each other and all is well with the world
  5. Really? You know the constitution you live under? You know the laws that govern society? Those comprise the social contract. It is what keeps me from going to my neighbor's house and appropriating items of his that I covet. If you truly wish to renounce all such explicit or implied agreement then I wish you a found farwell as you make your way to Somalia where there is no government to compel you to do anything you do not want to do, while also not enforcing any of your contracts or offering any protection of any kind. Live Free or Die
  6. I am sorry. This one concerns the law so I am fascinated by this. The developers could get a way out because the statute refers to collector and local streets. The System uses several factors to classify streets into one of four categories: local, collector, thoroughfare, and principal thoroughfare. The factors include: 1. Length of Road 2. Existing and projected traffic volume 3. Character of adjacent properties 4. Possibility of expansion, including manmade and natural barriers 5. Need to preserve thoroughfare corridors COH Planning Commission Definitions: * Principal Thoroughfare: more than 5 miles long; connects freeways and other principal thoroughfares; more than 30,000 vehicles per day, usually spaced 3
  7. "You'd better stop this thing, because I'm going to stop it unless you stop it." Bill White. Wow. How inappropriate is that. He should know better than to make such comments in public. It only gives more fodder to any potential legal action by the developers. It makes it even more clear the ordinance is being passed to block this project despite the words spoken at the city counsel meetings. I think every delay makes it even more likely they are not going to win this fight. The council's action came after the developers, Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners, agreed in writing not to seek any additional permits during the 90-day period.--Houston Chronicle. This seems to me like they are vested in the project under the law since they already have applied for permits. I just hope they are aware they cannot change the project or risk falling under any new ordinances.
  8. I was looking into the vesting statute as referenced earlier on this thread. My question is whether or not they have already filed their application. I am guessing that they have since all they have to do is give "fair notice" of the project to the city. Also, looking at some of the case law, Mayor White's frustration with the recalcitrance of the builders is better understood. If he can convince the builders to change their plan, then they lose their rights under the vesting statute. Because the term "project" is defined as an endeavor, rights vest in a particular project and are no longer vested if the project changes. City of San Antonio v. En Seguido, Ltd., 227 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2007). So, the way I am reading it, if they can get the owners to change their plans after they enact the ordinance, the city wins. "
  9. Don't have any info except for the variance sign says "Helena Gardens"
  10. So what I would imagine would happen now is: 1) City passes the ordinance 2) Developer(s) file for a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the ordinance as enacted; and 3) Concurrently, they will file a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking to declare the the ordinance is void because the City Council does not have the power to institute zoning. Then the city of Houston and various developers will pay a lot of money to attorneys to duke this out. What a shame. I love how the ordinance claims: That there exists a public emergency requiring that this Ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction as requested in writing by the Mayor; therefore, this Ordinance shall be passed finally on such date and shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor. So for this ordinance to apply to the proposed building would require: (1)Would increase the residential density within the proposed development by 100 percent or more; (2) Comprise 100 or more dwelling units; and (3) Is proposed to take any vehicular access from an abutting twolane street with two-way traffic; for which development no structural permit has been issued. So basically, if there are 67 existing units, they could build a 133 unit building without falling under this statute. That would be about 1/3 fewer units than the developers are currently proposing. The funny part is, the developers could double the commercial and office components in the proposal, thereby causing greater traffic than the residences alone and there would still be nothing the neighborhood (except for passing another ordinance) could do about it. Additionally, the developers could make the building even taller with they fewer units and the neighborhood could not do anything. I do not know a whole about land use ordinances in Houston, but I would argue this would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Although the standard of review in commerce cases is only rational basis, there is seems to be no rational basis to have the law only apply to residential properties and not others. I would imagine the traffic impact of a Wal-mart would be way greater than the high rise, as would a 23 story office building. There seems to be no rational basis for this only to apply only to a residential building. Given the time span given in writing this statute, you know the city has no basis for believing there is something unique about residential buildings that (1) Increasing traffic congestion, hazardous traffic conditions, travel time and vehicle conflicts on City streets; (2) Increasing vehicle/pedestrian conflicts resulting in injury or death to pedestrians; and (3) Impeding the ability of police, fire, ambulance and disaster response services to respond effectively to emergency or disaster situations; The city charter states: Section 13, Referendum on Zoning. The City of Houston shall have the power to adopt a zoning ordinance only by: (a) allowing a six month waiting period after publication of any proposed ordinance for public hearings and debate and ( holding a binding referendum at a regularly scheduled election. Any existing zoning ordinance is hereby repealed. (Added by amendment January 15, 1994) So how can they go ahead and have this hearing so quick and adopt the ordinance. I am assuming all of this is based upon their police powers relating to the public streets. We all know that is a load of garbage, but it is hard to fight the government when they give any reason to courts, the courts will usually listen.
  11. It seems like they are completely hanging their hat on the traffic issue. Would a "traffic ordinance" like the one suggested by Bill White (no zoning on his watch btw, lol) really do a whole lot to curb development. Especially since the city seems pretty insistent on making adding lanes to road to handle anticipated increases in traffic. It seems like the city is saying they want to help, just not so much so they do not ruffle too many (read wealthy contributors) feathers. I had heard they were looking at trying to claim the building would be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Seems like a bit of reach to me. The only common theme I see in all the articles is that there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop the developers, but the residents and their friends in city hall (though the politicians have to play both sides of the fence...developers contribute a lot of money and it is an election year) are going to do their damnedest anyhow.
  12. Over the past ten years, it has started to happen more and more. You would be surprised.
  13. Well, my point is people need to stop listening to special interests who fight zoning so hard if they want to protect their homes from this type of development. Maybe this spur some sort of movement. I do not think many people would be terribly upset is this type of development were limited to certain areas. I prefer the system in Austin personally where dense development spurs dense development in designated areas while protecting the fabric of single-home neighborhoods. I actually have family who recently purchased a home in this neighborhood. It sucks for them, but, at least, they have always been proponents of zoning to prevent these types of situations.
  • Create New...