Marksmu

This is a flat out lie.  I also want to preserve the character of the neighborhood which has been eccentric and friendly, which you and your like have destroyed by imposing your will upon your non approving neighbors.  No I don't like seeing old houses smashed that could be saved, but the lengths you are willing to go to to save them is destroying the fabric of the community in my opinion.  I have said all along that a clearly written, set of guidelines and rules for preservation is something I could likely support, but the way this was put in place and the ability of a few to allow and deny projects based on a whim is sickening.

 

By the way, I also preserve and restore antique furniture as a hobby. (I have also repurposed several destroyed pieces I picked up off the side of the road).  I enjoy doing this and enjoy keeping things that have use from going to the dump.  I am a presrvationist for many things have been for many years. 

Very well spoken!

Unanimous vote to overturn....Gafrick and the 6 hahc fools should resign after this one if they had any self respect. But I have a feeling the State AG will help them along soon. Hats off to Brie for helping out a new neighbor and introducing me to some fine new friends.

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.

I wrote a support email as well.  As a homeowner on Harvard street I find this a bit silly.  On my block alone there are at least a half dozen homes that already exist and that are larger in scale than this project.  It's WHY Harvard is one of the premiere streets to live on in the Heights, lol.

I have two young boys and I can't see living in a 2-1 or an upgraded 2-1 with a small addition on the back.  I want more young families to move to the Heights so that the schools improve and there are some kids for my sons to play with. If people are going to be denied the right to appropriately upgrade their own home I think that is an overall hindrance to the quality of our great neighborhood.

 

I also don't like the insinuation that if you support someone's appeal you are not "for historic preservation."  That is ridiculous.  I support historic preservation and keeping the character of the neighborhood feeling "old homie." I also support some amendments to the ordinance - as it should be a process of continuous improvement.

 

On a separate topic - but relevant to 1811 Harvard - this should have nothing to do with the SIZE of the homes.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Is the Glassell home historic?  You bet.  Is it a massive house on a giant lot?  You bet.  Did the massive house at 11th and Heights (the one that burned) look historic and fit in?  It certainly did - it was beautiful and contributed to the character of the neighborhood.  As does Sara's B&B and the list goes on...

 

Cheers

James

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.

Brie

I am sorry you felt it necessary to respond to my post in such a manner. I was simply posting to help those in the neighborhood who don't necessarily feel this is good preservation practice, which is what I thought this forum was for.

I am disappointed that you have chosen a public forum to make false and slanderous accusations and assumptions about me.

 

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!

In your effort to dodge the point you didn't bother to imagine that anyone else has actually been to city center and knows you're absolutely wrong about the number of ways to get in and out of the place. Nice effort though.

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.

As a counterpoint to Mark's post (holding his bungalow in the HD for a better price) my neighbor just sold her 2-1 bungalow on Harvard and it was on the market for less than a day.  She got exactly what I would have expected for it (mid 300's) both in and out of the HD's)   It was bought specifically by someone wanting to do an addition.

 

I think the market in the Heights (both in and out of the HD's) is comparable.  I think the best person to talk to about his would be a realtor, as they see a large sample set - unlike us who see one or two. 

I think the ordinance is a PITA.  I also think the dry district in the middle of the Heights is a PITA.  But on the other hand, I'm glad nobody can build and run a bar next to my house.  Nor can anyone build a 6 story solid brick wall next to my house (see 12th st).  I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers

James

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.

RedScare is clearly of the mindset that, since most people are too stupid to know what is good for them, developers should simply do it for them. He has done more to alert me of the dangers of not monitoring activists than anyone else. This dude's views are truly scary in their overarching scope. I use this thread to educate my neighbors to the perils of letting "free marketers" run wild.

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.

And I was talking to a friend who lives in the HD in Woodland Heights.  She said that she is so glad that she lives in an HD after seeing what they are building on Morrison.  She said that lots of people just outside the Woodland Heights HD are scurrying trying to find a way to get included or get another HD set up so they do not end up with another development like the thing on Morrison.

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.

Same reason the overwhelming majority of Heights residents are not up in arms. It is a non-issue. Just because a couple of Heights residents whine about it doesn't mean all of us do.

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.

Walmart rarely does store specific radio advertising.  I had never heard one until the Heights Walmart ads. 

 

Radio ads are expensive.  If sales were good at the Heights location, Walmart would not invest in the advertising.  They would just do their usual print fliers.  There is no company in the world that is more cost conscious that Walmart.  They are cost conscious to a fault.  It is not at all a stretch to conclude that the ad campaign has been prompted by poor sales. 

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....

Your math is incorrect.

 

You were taxed at a 39% rate on $100, and 20% on $50. 

 

Or you can look at it as having paid $39 in taxes on $100, and paying $10 in taxes on $50.

 

Or you can look at it as having paid $49 in taxes on $150.

 

Whichever you look at it that does not equal 50% tax on $100.

 

If you're saying you paid 50% of what you had at the end of the day in taxes, then okay, but that's not how anyone calculates it.

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.

Revenue and income are different things. Capital improvements, maintenance, and expenses (and depreciation, and lots of other things) are claimed against income. Capital investment losses can also be claimed against income.

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.

This makes no sense.

The top tax rate is around 35% and SE taxes phase out around 100k.  How does "take home" get to 35%?

 

The allusion to capital improvements,etc... are all immediately recoverable for tax so it would reduce your taxable income immediately.   

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.

Why are you so worried about "being on welfare later" if you're in the top tax bracket? Only the top bracket pays 20%, everyone else 15%. That is, people making over $400,000 a year.

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.

When I get time I'll try to split the topic into Walmart and non-Walmart.  Maybe another topic just for the insult posts. 

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!

No, you had $150 of income, not $100.

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.

Facts?  Where? 

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?

Where is the person who removes off topic/boring posts?

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

 I have big problems with trillion dollar deficits.  The majority of the deficits are from unnecessary wars, a bloated defense department that does more to destablize the world that defend the United States, an un-funded medicare drug benefit that is nothing more than a wealth transfer to the pharmacuetical industry (could have saved billions by allowing the US gov't to negotiate prescription drug prices), tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% (15% cap gains is absurdly low), tax loopholes for billions in corporate taxes that are avoided by off-shoring and silly tax gifts to the energy industry and farm subsidies that are just wealth transfer payments to big AG to produce junk food and cheap meat instead of supporting healthy produce, which is not even eligible for crop insurance.  I am bothered by the solvency of medicare, but would fix it by nationalizing health insurance into a medicare for all program that would immediately save billions by eliminating the wasteful advertising budgets, corporate profits, bloated executive compensation of big insurance and would negotiate an end to the endless inflation in health care by making sure that all services are covered so providers do not have to overcharge one group in order to make up for non-payment or underpayment by another.  So,  unfortunately for you, the world is not such a simple place where you are either with the Tea Party or you are just suffering from irrational hatred for Walmart.  In fact, your obsession with the anti-Walmart folks is basically your frustration that the world does not fit into your neat little categories.  There are complicated issues out there that require more than name calling and selfserving presumptions of bad intent. 

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.