SCDesign

I wonder if I took a book of pictures of the original houses in the Heights, there are a couple of really good ones, we could use them as examples of Historic architecture that we want to replicate. I mean, the whole thing is about Historic preservation, and saving the neighborhood, what could be better than rebuilding houses like some of the ones that originally made the Heights great. I could do 2 story Victorians, 2 story Revivals, 2 story Craftsmen. Pretty much everything that I've been building. I think that would be a pretty valid argument too.

I think samagon has it right. The preservationists will whittle away at the non-historic areas a block at a time. My biggest concern is that 15 peopls will get together and create a new "district" of 150 homes and make a submittal. That sumbittal will immediately put those 150 homes under the rules fo the Historic Ordinace until the "vote" is done. They will use the same approach of "no vote is a yes vote", since they are getting away with it this time, and so effectively the new district will have to get 34% of owners to vote against to district, and most of those "disticts" probably won't be nearly as informed as the ones that have been in the fight to date. That's not going to happen so the new districts will start popping up everywhere starting very soon. I would hate to own property there during this mess.

s3mh, Where are you getting your information about Bingalow Revival and other builders making money rebuilding/remodeling these homes? I can tell you with ABSOLUTE certainty that 4 of 6 of my very close builder friends have lost significant amounts of money on remodels in the last few years, and the others were happy to sell close to break even. I have lost more than I really care to think about at this time, and I'm what one of the few remaining builders would call exceptionally lucky. You really know nothing about the economics of building, whether it's new or old. If you DO know someone who is making money doing spec remodels please be specific and give us some numbers: innitial investment, carry costs including financing and taxes, overages and percentage of asking price as well as days on market and and sellers incentives. Lots of people can say "that guy is making money" but I know most of those guys and very few of them are.

Back when this started we were told that if the architectural plans were in process those plans would be grandfathered with the 90 day waiver. I'm waiting to hear back to see if that still stands or if it will expire within a certain time. I'm worried that, with the court battle, the City will delay as much as possible. Question to any attornies here: what do you think the odds are of getting an injunction on the enforcement of the ordinance until the trial is settled? heights: my problem is with anyone siccing the City on someone. That's what this whole thing is about: one group of people going to the City to force others to do what they want rather than having the stones to confront each other and handle it like "men". Regardless of who is running to tattle to the principle, they are a "d" in my book. I'll give you the benefit and say that is a "d" idea adn you probably wouldn't do it. If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

If you have cash that would work, but if you need to finance you will always have a 30 day window where you will be exposed. That 10% can submit anytime they want, not just on certain dates like when submitting a plan for CoA review. You can put a stipulation in the contract that gets you out even up to the date of closing, but if you exercise that too often you may start having trouble with your lender and title company. You are correct abut the pre-planned houses though. Expect to see a lot more tract like homes anywhere areound the HDs. Of course, most of them are pretty tract-like already. Sigh, I'm going to miss the fun we could have with architecture in the Heights. It was an original, exciting and fun place to be; now it's just going to be a boring throwback slowly devolving into a homogamous 1920's Sears & Roebuck catalogue.

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on. I wouldn't be so sure that the areas around the Heights are going to experience a rapid growth now. I'm predicting an overall slowdown of growth in the area and north through Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. Why? Because with this ordinance it only takes 10% of the residents to submit an application and start the process toward becoming an HD; and once the application is submitted, regardless of the validity of the applicaiton, the area is treated as an HD. I don't think any new HD's will be created,\ but I think that the strategy from now on will be to get that 10% to submit applications, delay the survey process for as long as possible, and once the survey fails to create the HD to have the shortest possible time between then and the next time the application can be submitted. I can't see investing my money in an area that has the potential to be paralized for 8+ months out of the year by 10% of the property owners. I don't think it's all doom and gloom either, at least in the Historic Districts. At least I know the situation there, unlike the other areas that are going to be in chaos from now on. This could even be a good thing over the short term. I think a lot of the fence sitters are going to move now and do remodels to get their houses on the market soon. That may spur some new buyers to come in with the idea of buying up unimproved properties and fixing them up. It'll stop the huge property value increases, and will really slow down, if not stop, the speculation, but it could be okay if everything goes right. And I honestly hope it does work out that way because I love the Heights. I'm not betting on it though. I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

Is there a way to prevent them from destroying the ballots after the count so that we can verify that all of the votes sent in were counted, not altered, forged, ect? A Freedom of Information Act request beforhand or something? I can see them shredding the ballots as they are counted if they don't have some sort of court order in front of them to stop it. Preserving the record ahs got to be a priority now. Since the postmark has to be Dec 22 they will probably do the counting on the 27th (the following Monday) or the 31st (New Year Eve Friday) in order to stop people from wanting to supervise the count or make it difficult to get a court order to preserve the evidence. Just a thought.

That would be true if the HAHC didn't have the power to name Historic Districts regardless of the feelings of the property owners. It would be extremely unpopular but imagine this scenerio: Parker is reelected, knows that she has no further political future, and is still a radical preservationist at heart. So, in a final act for the greater good, she directs the HAHC to "save" a number of districts that she knows will never get 67%, as well as re-establishing all of the districts that were lost at the end of 2010. The Ordinance only allows for a re-vote this time so if she does it this there is no way to overturn what she has done. Could she have agreed to set the vote-in number at 67% because she knew it wouldn't matter? Okay, that's very far fetched, I'll admit. But it IS POSSIBLE under this new ordinance. I find that pretty scary. Maybe the ballots should be returned to a neutral site as well. Or a PO Box that can't be opened until a certain date. If they are returned to the Planning Department Historic Preservation Office is it possible that someone there in fear of losing their job (since a good portion of the Historic Area could be lost and the City is facing a $25M shortfall sure to be covered by layoffs) might misplace some of the ballots? Non returned ballots count as a vote for the District so nobody even needs to forge a card, they just have to ensure that one never shows up. The possibilities for rigging this are endless...

We need to fight for a place at the counting table, especially since a card not returned counts as a vote for the District. I'm not saying anyone at the City is dishonest, but I can see someone forgetting a stack of vote cards while transfering them from one area to another. We need to make sure that every vote card is counted, and that every returned card is accounted for. If someone has a questions as to whether their card was counted the City should be able to say "Yes, a card was recieved from XXX Arlington St and that vote was For/Against the Ordinance". It would be easym cheap and fair, but it's going to take a fight to get it so we should start making noise about it soon.

At all of the meetings I went to I was told that if you didn't need a permit for the work you wouldn't need a CoA. Changing fascia and siding doesn't require a permit so not only are they changing the definition of necessary maintenace but they are also going back on their stated policy of not requiring of CoA on non permitted work. And how long has that taken? A little over a month. How do you think it's going to be when the districts are ironed out? Also, I know the inspector that wrote this tag and he's as knowledgable and reasonable as any inspectors we have in this city. He's also the main HD inspector. He would only write that tag if he were instructed to by his supervisors, so if he wrote it I'm sure that's policy and not overaealousness..

This is something everyone should read before they vote to remain a Historic District. http://blogs.har.com/774/12909/This-is-not-what-Heights'-residents-signed-up-for-when-they-agreed-to-be-in-a-Historic-District.--Who-can-call-this-progress?ref=nf

Did anyone go to the meeting last night? I'm kind of behind on everything.

Well, I sent the recording to Swamplot, the Chronicle, and Council Members Lovell and Gonzalez. I asked Councilmember Lovell to clairify that the Heights would get a re-vote regardless of the new guidlines since she promised it at a public meeting in front of about 800 people. If anyone reacts I'll let you know.

I have a recording of Sue Lovell at the Heights meeting where she SPECIFICALLY says that the Heights WILL have a re-survey. Quote, after the hand vote, (time stamp 1:34:45 on my recording) "Pretty much as we thought, we will be doing a re-survey in the Heights. We will be sending you your ballots and we will be getting the correct information to you." Nothing ambiguuous about that statement to me. We need to get that out. Nothing is better than her lying to us in her own words. If anyone wants the recording of that meeting I'm happy to send it to you.

It seems that there is a lot going on now with the City, which I don't feel at liberty to discuss. If anyone lives, or knows someone who lives, in the Woodland Heights who signed the original petition but would now like to retract that signature, please have them contact me or http://www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/ for a retraction form. It's VERY important that we get more signatures for the Woodland Heights ASAP. Also, if anyone would like a blue yard sign please request one. The signs are having an affect.