Marksmu

Very well spoken!

I think this is the end game the entire time. Make it as hard as possible to get past the HAHC, put up road blocks right and left, but then when it gets to council allow them to do whatever they want. I think the council, the HAHC, the Mayor, everyone, knows that this was not legally enacted and can be overturned by a court. However, I think that the courts will dismiss any case attempting to overturn the ordinance unless they are damaged by the ordinance itself...it appears that by just approving everything at council, they are preventing any plantiff from having standing to sue... I could be way off on this, as I have not done any research, but I know quite a few municipalities use this tatic to put draconian ordinances out there that are impossible to legally enforce...its just a deterrent.

But if you makes the homes bigger and nicer, the taxes will go up for the preservationists....thats been the end game the whole time. They want to keep the neighborhood old to stop any more growth, which will prevent any more increase in taxable value. The preservationists are not really preservationists, they are just folks who are getting priced out of their own home.

I see no false or slanderous statements in her post at all. She asked if you were the person who wrote a letter that completely mis-represented her. Perhaps living in your tiny well maintained shack has caused you to down size other aspects of your life as well...perhaps your underwear clinch too tightly around your testicles thereby creating headaches or other symptoms which may or may not contribute to your rudeness and apparent over-sensitivity issues. In all seriousness, lighten up - the ordinance is TERRIBLE and its destroying the neighborhood. Small well maintained shacks are great for singles and old people, but the Heights is evolving into a real neighborhood again full of young, wealthy, working families....we dont need an ordinance standing in our way so that the original residents can afford to continue living here. Im sorry your taxes will price you out of the hood, but inventing a historic ordinance for 19XX tract homes is a complete and total waste of private & public funds. The heights was one of the original suburbs of Houston, it was full of tract homes of that era. Change is inevitable as it is in a very desirable area of town, not prone to flooding. Those who are in support of preservation had a method of doing so prior to the ordinance...Individual deed restrictions. The rest of the neighborhood (the silent majority) just want to go about their lives without the intervention of the vocal minority who wish to freeze time.

I sent my email in support of the approval. Hope it helps!

He is right, City Centre has at least 6 ways in/out with streets on both sides of the main boulevard. Just at the moment several of them are not open due to ongoing construction from the amazing success of the chain stores that draw people into the area to shop/eat.

I am a realtor, I have been tracking every single sale that closes b/c I was selling my house outside of the west HD and my rental is inside the West HD. Lots both inside and outside of the district are moving rapidly. Lots that have non-contributing houses on the East side of Heights are selling for the most money and the fastest. Newer construction on the east side is getting the absolute best price, followed by new construction on the West side. After that its bungalows that are remodeled, regardless of location. The west side is the real place you can see the difference. Bungalows that in reality should be torn down are moving faster outside of the district than inside...Prices are higher outside of the HD than inside if the particular block is developed. If the block is relatively undeveloped its builders making the investment. It seem individuals are not quite as keen on taking the risk of the block not developing as a developer is.

How is it surprising that a boutique nobody shops at goes out of business? Only in your world is that a surprise.

Since I am moving out of the Heights, I would sell my rental in the Heights if the market in the district was as good as the market out. I also firmly believe that people are getting more and more frustrated with the ordinance and that it will eventually be repealed. Since the rental is leased, and has been very easy to lease, I will leave it as a rental and just roll the dice on whether or not the ordinance gets repealed. I generally do not like to own rentals more than a couple miles from where I live unless its on my way to work, since the Heights will soon no longer fit that bill, I would prefer to sell - but I firmly believe my value has been impacted and thus Im going to hold out and hope for repeal.

The HAHC is not shutting down developers. The developers just quit buying the lots in the district. Its harming homeowners, people who bought a house that was free from government intrusion and then had their development rights stolen from them by a bunch of arrogant, snotty politicians and neighbors. I don't really sympathize with those who bought into the districts AFTER the ordinance went into effect, but those like me, and Red, whose development rights were literally stolen, so that a minority of very vocal residents can participate in a social experiment in creating their own personal utopia at the expense of others. There is very very little support for the ordinance and the districts now, but until we get a new mayor its pointless to fight. When Parker goes, the districts will follow her and we can abolish this monstrosity. The irony is that once the ordinance is fully repealed, the developers will raze every home they can as fast as they can in fear of a new ordinance being reinstated. It will produce exactly the opposite effect that was intended and more old homes will be demolished. Like it or not, your views are radical. Those of the free market, and private property, are NOT radical. Those are the core values that our founding fathers fought for. A government that does not intrude and impede its will upon its people. You sir, are the radical - not those who only wish to protect which is LAWFULLY theirs. You are clearly far more delusional than we thought.

I call BS too - I spoke with 5 people, all in the new historic districts at a party the other night. One was very frustrated about not getting approved for his second go around. I had told him prior to the HD being finalized that he needed to pay attention and get involved. He was too busy to be bothered. Now he has a newborn, and the 1100sq ft well maintained shack is not cutting it. He has been denied his improvement twice and now he cares. The other 4 folks were not even aware that they were in historic districts at all....One just completely redid his front porch without a COA 2 sundays ago, and apparently got away with it. He had no idea that he was even in a district let alone that what he did to his porch would never pass approval. Lucky for him he got it done without getting caught. When they finally found out what the district and the ordinance was, nobody wanted it, and all 4 of these folks are big government liberal lawyers.... There is pretty much nobody with a brain left supporting this thing. Anyone who is paying attention knows it bad. Those who wont admit it are willfully blind, or one of the folks who want it b/c without it they wont be able to afford to stay in their house much longer because of the pace of improvements prior to it.

Its funny how short sighted, or just flat uninformed, misinformed, and in many cases just flat out dumb so many of the ordinance supporters really are...did they really think it would never apply to them? All because of the alleged townhome monster about to eat the heights! So many people supported the ordinance only to find it now contains things that they don't approve of....Pretty much followed the exact trend of the current state of politics. The government is no longer working for the people. The vocal minority has too much power.

That video is sickening....Clearly property owners are not as learned as those who sit on that board. With all the crime in the neighborhood, one can only hope and pray that a bunch of thugs dont rent a bulldozer and destroy this home in its entirety over a weekend! The crime has gotten so bad, that I fear that once they have removed everything of value the only thing left to do that would shock people anymore would be to totally destroy the house to prevent those nice, wealthy families from improving the entire neighborhood with a great addition. Damn criminals.

Recently there have been alot of very snobby, liberal know it all hypocrites, ruining the reputation of the Heights....we are rapidly becoming, if we have not already become the snotty, snobby, whiney, brothers kid that everyone makes fun of.

I have recently heard the Pearland walmart ad, the Heights Walmart Ad, a Kingwood Walmart ad, and a Spring walmart ad.....so while you may THINK that they don't do location specific ads you would be wrong...in fact I cant remember the last time I heard a generic one....I believe the entire new campaign is local. Even the TV add says where they are - Hi were here with XXXXXX from YYYYY who normally shops at Krogers to see how much she could be saving on the same products at Walmart....

I understand your point, I am well versed in tax calculations, but I care ONLY about 2 numbers. Amount of taxes paid to government $49.6 Amount of money I have after taxes. $101 Your last sentence is the way I look at it, which I understand is different than the way others are accustomed to looking at it. I have always thought that no taxes should be taken from a paycheck...every person should have their taxes withheld in a separate account they can't access, but then on tax day each person should be REQUIRED to write that check...currently nobody cares...heck 50% of the US thinks 4/15 is a payday.

Its not revenue, its profit...its profit from the business being reinvested back into the business. Its not depreciable, expensable or deductible until its spent...When it is cash in the business bank accounts, its profit subject to the top tax brackets when filed on your personal income taxes. I could easily say, hmmm, I need to buy a car this month and just write myself a check for the car from the business account to my account. That is not a taxable event b/c my business taxes are paid on my personal taxes. Its not that complicated.

You are incorrect. The 2013 top tax bracket is now 39.6% not 35%. Look it up. Same with new capital gains tax rate of 20% SS & Medicare stops collecting at $113,000 I think. When you have business income that is filed on your personal taxes as a K-1, the business income & profit is reported to you personally....there is an allusion that you have the money even though you do not. I use, and my accountant supports a rule of thumb - 40% taxes, 35% reinvestment, 25% pay out as expendable income. So while the business may show a profit of $400,000 - taxes will take $158,400 of that - reinvestment into the business will take $140,000 and my "salary" would be $101,600. The business is increasing in value, but to be successful in business you have to have capital available to take advantage of opportunities....this is why increasing the top tax brackets impacts small businesses so drastically.

Business income is filed on my personal income taxes - I don't take home $400,000/yr - it just looks like it on the taxes. Money must be spent on capital improvements/maintenance/on going expenses, and also stashed away for future expansion/unforseen problems.... Business income of $400,000 results in take home of usually about 35% of that....If the investments pan out its great for everyone. If not, its money lost. It is precisely why the tax increases are so hard on small/medium size businesses.

All these topics merge seamlessly...this thread has got to drive alot of traffic - its the one thread in all of the forums that I frequent that I keep coming back to.... Its a great topic its full of everything!

I agree but your take home is still only $101.40 after taxes. I put it in numbers so it was clear... $100 W2 Income $50 capital gains. $150 total "income" but the $50 was on after tax income - in other words, the basis for the second $50 of income was $50 of after tax dollars. I understand your point, but my point is clear- to net $101, you will pay $49.6, everything else is just semantics.

Perhaps you missed the long post you declared boring. It was full of facts on Taxes. Fact - top tax rate is 39.6% Fact - capital gains rate 20% Fact - 1 year minimum investment period to claim capital gains Fact - Govt prevents groups employers from grouping up to leverage buying power against insurance agencies That is a multitude of facts....perhaps you should put the calipers down and brush up on reading comprehension?

yes - lets get rid of facts that dont support our political agendas and liberal hatred of big business/walmart

You do realize that capital gains, are gains on income that has already been taxed once at the marginal rate, right? I make $100 at my day job and I pay $39.6 to the government and get to keep $61.4...from that I take $50 and re-invest so that I wont be on welfare later in life....more than 1 year later (yes 1 whole year) I that $50 is worth $100 b/c I'm not an idiot, and when I want to take that $100 and move it to another smart investment, I now get to pay another 20% in capital gains (that was changed from 15%)...so my original $100 has now been taxed to the tune of $39.60 (regular income) + $10 (capital gains $50 basis, $50 gain)....so I have paid $49.60 on $100 - that is nearly 50%... $100 Oridinary income - $39.60 taxes, $61.4 remaining (this ignores SS, & medicare & employer payroll taxes) $50 reinvested, $50 gain - $10 capital gains Taxes Total cash remaining after all taxes paid $101.40 Total paid in Taxes $49.60, effective tax rate of this person 48.9% and of that $101.4, 50% was at risk of total loss AND untouchable for a whole year..but thats too low!? When SS & Medicare are factored in the effective tax rate easily tops 50%, but you love listening to the lame stream media & Warren Buffett and the whole BS surrounding the I pay less than my secretary argument. Raising the capital gains rate only accomplishes one thing - it reduces the incentive for people to save/reinvest & increases the likelihood of future government dependence...which is exactly what liberals want....We should not be raising capital gains taxes, we should be abolishing them all together to encourage savings. We don't need government insurance either - just allow employers, & trade groups to join up and buy insurance across state lines...imagine the National Association of Manufactures, Realtors, Nurses, all being able to group together with their industry to buy health care in bulk volume... competition will solve the problem...only thing is the lobbyists, all loyal democrats, have effectively shut that down too b/c the end game has always been government care & government control. I wont start into how wrong you are on food/agriculture, something I am involved in daily - but suffice it to say, very little in your post shows any real grasp at all about economics, taxes, or even basic understanding of what has taken place to get us where we are.

It was their plain ole grilled chicken sandwhich...it came with cucumbers, lettuce, tomato, pickles, on a toasted bun and with some kind of fry that was made in heaven. I say it was overpriced, but I liked it so much that I would pay for it again and again.