Heights Homeowner

Another astounding HAHC meeting today. Won't get into details but honestly, these folks are making an easy case for overturning/overhauling the ordinance. They have no idea what they are doing. They have no idea what the ordinance says. They have no idea about what design is all about. Clueless. Even funnier is they look like buffoons because they can’t even keep track of the things they have already voted on as a part of the consent agenda. They are a kangaroo court of bumbling idiots whose day is coming in the not too distant future. Best decision – to deny a two story house a two story addition – and said if the house was new, they would allow it?!?!?!?! Most comical – requiring a non-contributing house to use contributing materials and design on work that was done without a C of A or permits. I’m not sure they understand that the law takes a dim view of things that are administered as arbitrary and capricious as the rulings they make. I think any judge watching any HAHC meeting would be shaking his head in absolute amazement that this is going on in the 4th largest city in the US. It’s a total joke without the laugh.

Nope! You have to get permission from the HAHC for everything. Once the application is filed, the city says you are in a pending districts and all rules apply. The city council needs to vote on the South district and the mayor doesn't want to put it on the agenda because she knows that there aren't the votes for them to pass. She may think she can hold out until she has a new city council in January of 2012.

Gonzalez has known for months that he likely will not have the Heights in his district. It was even brought up at a council meeting. They know he isn't representing his constituents which contributed to why they were willing to vote against the report. They normally try to support one another. If you watched the vote, sevearl went after him for his defense of the process. They are more than aware of the deals he cut with MAP and they don't like it. Between Wal-mart and the HPO issue, he knew he would't have to face any political consequences, or so he thought. He can run, but he can't hide. He will face a serious challenger. A Hispanic will step up to run against him and if they court the Hispanic groups, he won't get re-elected. People in the Heights will support his opposition whether he has the Heights in his district or not. People think he is a nice guy with no backbone and just a pawn of Parker. The map comes out today.

The 8 to 7 vote was: In Favor: Parker Lovell Noriega Huang Rodriguez Costello and of course Gonzalez Opposed: Jones Bradford Sullivan Johnson Adams Clutterbuck Pennington Stardig Everyone needs to write our 8 supporters and THANK THEM for some sanity and reason. They vote for this where the community seems to support it and didn't where they KNOW the community does not! We need to let them know how much we appreciate their support and will remember them in November and with our campaign contributions. We also need to tell the seven who voted against PROPERTY RIGHTS that we won't forget in November!! We especially need to go after Costell and Noriega who are At-Large and everyone of us gets to vote against them. And of course, there is Gonzalez, who is toast! I will make a list of council member addresses and post a little later so you can all email them to let them know you will have their back because they had ours!

I wonder how many other politicians think the "commander in cheif" in their political structure is their boss? Does Ed Gonzalez think that Rick Perry is the boss of the legislators? Does Ed think that Obama is the boss of the House Representatives and Senators? He needs a government class!! I sent a message to www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com website asking they put this info on their site. It has to go down as one of the all time stupid things a politician has said publicly. Hey Ed, ever heard of democracy, or a system of checks and balances? We might have a strong mayoral form of government but you were still elected to represent District H, not the mayor! She isn't your boss! Unbelievable!

Dan, did you do this video? Its hysterical!

Gonzo thinks that Parker is his boss. He doesn't work for her and she is not his boss but that is exactly how he acts. At least she had enough sense to set the record straight. The term Parker's Puppet fits him well! I just am surprised at his stupidity at calling her his boss. It's very telling. How long ago was this? Anyone interested in giving him a piece of your mind, email him at: districth@houstontx.gov. Email his cheif of staff too: Carlos.Doroteo@houstontx.gov

I hope Gonzalez' comments end up on this website! http://www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com/ He is unbeleivable! He completely ignores the overwhelming opposition in the historic districts in District H. They gave him the evidence last week but then the next day he went on the record and said "we had a process, whether it was flawed or not" and its fine since some of the people want it. The rumor on the street is that there will be direct action against Gonzalez for ignoring the majority of his constituents. He sold out Longoria on the Port Authority appointment and admitted it to a LULAC rep - for the Mayor Pro Tem job. He worked behind the scenes on Walmart until MAP let him off the hook since she had enough other votes. Otherwise, he always votes the way the mayor wants him to. But where is the media on this? How can they let this guy off the hook? Time for Wayne Dolcefino! And its time to get Gonzo out of District H and get someone whose vote can't be bought!

Well, I can't say I would ever get involved in a fight against adult businesses being near churches. And I don't see much "for the public good" for prohibiting liquor sales near them either. As a reformed Catholic, I have zero problems with where ever they sell liquor including next door to a church. But, we come from a fairly puritan sociaety and so I get it. If the majority of people don't want liquor sold near a church or a strip club across the street, okay. Schools on the other hand, I am all for limiting the proximity of both and not because they would attract children but liquor and schools zones don't mix...and depending on the adult establishment, some of those don't belong near schools. It's too hard to distinguish between what would be okay and what wouldnt' so a ban on all is fine with me. I can make the case for the public good...safety, health and welfare. Neither one of them have anything to do with morals for me. There is nothing really the same about those types of businesses being restricted in their location and what has happened with these historic districts. The law already exists. If a church or a school decides to open their doors near one of those business, they don't have to close. The property owner who buys property within the restricted areas around churches and schools should do their due diligence if they want to operate one of those types of businesses and not buy. In our case, we already owned our property. We did not have these restrictions. Then, because a handful of people want to dictate taste, my property is now restricted on how I can improve it to make sense for my lifestyle of 2011 (like putting a closet in a bedroom). Nothing I would do would hurt my neighbor. Nothing I would do would pose a threat to children. It's just not apples to apples. I am willing to live with some reasonable restrictions for some types of things but not to regulate taste.

And you have hit it too. People were skeptical of even the 90-day waiver, which is why it took so long. They had good cause to be skeptical. In general though, people wanted some attention paid to what was going on in the neighborhood so they thought this sounded like a good idea. Plenty of people refused to sign either knowing intuitively or from experience that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They knew as soon as Parker was elected, they had the muscle to get it done the way they wanted, with or without the support of the community. Parker said as much when she pushed for the moratorium. She was still in her honeymoon on council but if she had to get their support for it today, she would lose. However much you dislike her, she isn't stupid. She knew she had to strong arm council members to get her way and the would only take it so long. One year into her term, she has eroded the goodwill on council and divided neighbors in once happy, congenial communities. That is all her doing. Folks like s3 have the same "win at all costs" mentality and don't care who they hurt to get their way. They just didn't count on the oppositon in the neighborhoods having enough tenacity to take them on and didn't realize that the mayor would overplay her hand on council. There is a reason 4 council members spoke on condition of anonymity about her adminstration. Former allies and friends think she has gone off the rail and her hold on the few she has left is quickly being broken. She will go down as one of the most reviled and ineffective mayors we've had. Like the HHA and the nutjobs that used to be in power, she will eventually be replaced with a more rationale leader who will straighten out all this crap. With any luck, that will happen November 2011.

It's okay Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling. You can feel safe and secure that no lawsuit about Constitutional law will overturn your historic restrictions on development. And you can feel confident that no one cares if the ordinance decresed the value of granny's house which was always intended to take care of her elder care and she won't miss the $100k she will lose in value. She's just an old lady who won't know the difference anyway, right? And Chicky, it isn't your tone anyone objects too. Well okay, some people object to it but it was your threats that got me actively posting and pointing out your lies and your hedonist comments. No one has ever said the changes to the ordinance were not 100% driven by the neighborhood. They were 100% driven by a handful of folks who work at the city or are pals with the ones who work at the city. They teamed up with Parker, which we got from day one. Don't think we haven't figured out why one of them is a volunteer in our council member's office. They made the rounds with council and lied to them just like they lied to the public when they got our designation. However, those lies are now being exposed. Once council certifies the results from the flawed process that Parker fooled them with (which they now admit) then phase 2 starts. For now though, just keep telling yourself it will all be okay. You can still enjoy your sunrise.

Yes, it is both over-reaching and poorly written. And not supported by a majority. Roughly, (depending on how you count the tracts and which district you are referring to) about 40-45% signed directly in opposition. Another 20-25% or more have never signed in favor or against. The remaining third have not been heard from regarding the new ordinance so there can be no real assumption that they still support it. Of course, some do but that number is, from what we can tell from canvassing the neighborhood, is about 20-25%. It is unconscionable to restrict the property rights of everyone else with so little actual support. And unfortunately, the administration thinks that preservation does not require support of the community. We disagree strongly. Good preservation MUST have the support of the community to succeed. I do think that our neighborhoods would support some reasonable restrictions as long as they were driven by the neighborhood. But for the city to step in, without the support of the community, and decide what those restrictions are, is unacceptable and certainly not democratic. And where people's property rights are concerned, it certainly should be democratic. Look up where property rights are mentioned in both the US and Texas Constitutions. We take them very seriously in our country and in this state. If this were for health, safety or true welfare, as is the case for restrictions about liquor being sold near schools and churches, or adult-related businesses, then those would be understandably dealt with by the city. However, this is an ordinance unequally applied to just some of use. And that is not okay. I get your point about calling s3 a liar. I truly do. And honestly he/she would not get those kinds of comments had he/she not threatened the other posters on this forum. He doesn't get the respect others do because of his threats, and for that I won't apologize. Reasonable people can agree to reasonably disagree but when you start making threats against your neighbors, you get what you give.

I've made plenty of postings that don't address this dude's lies. But when he makes them, I point out what they are and why. In this one specifically, he claims we made no effort to make the ordinance better. This is patently false. If you read the first draft of the ordinance posted July 19th, you will find there is no exclusion for minor exterior changes (paint, light fixtures, HVAC). I can't provide you the specific section of the ordinance that it pertains to because it wasn't in it. However, the language of the ordinance has not changed which allowed regulation of everything. So, if you read the first you won't find it, if you read the final, you will. The language of the ordinance, Sec. 33-236. Prohibited activities; offense says: "No person shal alter, rehabilitate, restore or construct ANY exgterior feature of any building, structure or object within an historic district without a certificate of appropriateness." In legal terms, ANY means ANY. That all encompassing language is one of the many things we fought to change. The solution was to exclude the things we specifically mentioned. I am not going to retype the entire ordinace to prove it to you nor am I going to go through each section. One place this exlusion is mentioned is Sec. 33-201. Sec. 33-237. Exemptions (relates SPECIFICALLY the the issues we brought up). Section a) itemizes the exempted maintenance and repairs, and addresses the issue of the reconstruction of a non-contributing structure if destroyed by a natural disaster. Both of those things we fought for - any many more, including the requirement that these restrictions be consented to by a 67% majority. The good news is that 67% SUPPORT is what was included in the final draft for new districts. That was a huge fight we won. The bad news is that in a last ditch switcheroo, the mayor changed 67% support for the existing districts to 51% opposition, thereby allowing a minority to prevail by the flawed process. That is too long to go into but if you want to see city council in action on that and see that they only had 5 minutes to consider it, go to http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ and view the fight over it. It's on October 13th. I can't normally take this much time to find this stuff for you on every post. Read the ordinance. Then ask specific questions, if you really want to know. Quoting ordinance sections won't be high on my posting priorities though as it is time consuming. Those of us involved from the beginning know the truth, are very well educated on the issue, and regularly call that guy on the lies he tells. But the best thing you can do if you "really want to believe" me is read the ordinance. Read the memos by council members. Watch the council meetings where this issue is discussed. You don't need me to inform you. It is all out there in the public domain if you want more information. And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts. As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

I hate to sound like a broken record but remember my admonition that it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? But you can't remember it so I will once have to point out another fine example. Here goes... When you call someone "extremely ignorant" it is best not to follow it with a word you misspell. Gestapo has one "p" not two. Perhaps you have confused the word Gestapo with Geppetto? After all, they both start with a "G" and mostly have the same letters, right? Definition of IGNORANT 1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors> 2: unaware, uninformed — ig·no·rant·ly adverb — ig·no·rant·ness noun See ignorant defined for English-language learners »