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preservation, and saving the neighborhood, what could be better than rebuilding houses like some of the ones that originally made the Heights great.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.

Yeah, I know there is concern but looking at the probabley vote it's still going to be 9 for and 6 against, which is a pass. Most of the Council doesn't think this will have any effect on their Districts so they will probably be unwilling to stand up to the Mayor. Unfortunantely, unless people outside of the existing Historic Districts get more vocal, it's probably too late to stop this being adopted.

I just talked to someone at the City to see when they were going to send out the re-vote ballots and they told me that they are going to do in in October, after the Ordinance is adopted by City Council. Sue Lovell has been saying that if they do the re-vote before the Ordinance is passed they will only have to meet the 51% number, but if they do it after the Ordinace is passed it will be 67%. She kept saying this as though it would benefit the people against the ordinace to let it pass as it would make the preservationists meet a highter burden. What if the re-vote ballot says "Do you oppose the new Ordinance?" and they interpret the rule to mean that the OPPOSITION would need to meet the 67% burden to oppose the Historic District changes? I'm thinking that's the game they are going to play. Does anyone think that either side can get 67%? I don't think so. I do not have any knowledge of how this is going to work, but going by how it has been conducted so far I think there is going to be something sneaky happening.

s3mh, I did leave that off, which was an honest mistake, but it has no bearing on what that section states. From the number of attorneys I've talked to that section will be one of the main areas on trial if they don't do a re-petition. That and whether this constitutes zoning which is against the Houston Charter, teh validity of the original petition process, and a number of other things. If this passes the City Council the lawsuit will hit Federal Court by the following Monday. Then the question will be whether the Federal judge feels that this Ordinance should be allowed to be enforced while it is being argued, or not. Whoever wins that argument will be the ultimate victor: at least for 5 years or so. It just kills me when people say "They are lying, the ordinance doesn't say anything about paint color" because it's what the Ordinance doesn't say that scares everyone. It's so broad that you are trusting that it will be interpreted, by unelected people who don't even own property in the area, to not include paint color, or light fixtures, or whatever, when it does not say they can't. There is NO area that I have seen government given the power to control something, outside of regulating the financial or energy sectors, where they haven't interpreted that power as broadly as possible. Good luck with that trusting thing you have going, I honestly hope it works out. When a few houses are painted objectionable colors, and someone complain to their friend on the HAHC board saying “can’t you make them paint their house a better color so it doesn’t offend us, as a friend”, do you really think they won’t do it? It’s happened before. Here’s an example that will be germane to this discussion, and which I know intimately. Have you had to deal with an alley yet? A number of years ago the alleys became an issue in the Heights because people, mainly builders, were improving the alleys and using them. A lot of people liked that, but some didn't so they complained to the City that the improved alleys were causing flooding and drainage problems. Some of them were so it was an honest complaint. At first the City decided to simply inspect the alleys being improved to make sure they didn't cause problems, and that seemed to work most of the time but there were still some problems. Some dishonest people tried to get around even that by improving them on the weekend. So the City decided to photograph all of the alleys and classify them according to their condition. Now if you want to improve an alley you have to get it fully engineered by a Civil Engineer, do a plan and profile, and have a bonded company do the improvement. Alley improvements which used to cost a few thousand dollars, now costs about $200 per linear foot, or generally about $40,000 to go half of a block. How did that happen? Because there was nothing in the existing City Ordinance that said anything about how alleys should be treated, so in the absence of any restraint the City decided to go to the limits of their power and make alley improvements as onerous as possible. Incidentally, this is what spurred the front loading garage trend in the Heights that people hate so much, so everything has its unforeseen consequences.

Last nights meeting was actually a surprise to me. There were about 700 people there and I think it was pretty even as far as I could tell. I think the time and location were a nasty trick by the HAHC and that it gave the HDers a big advantage. The GRB at 6:30 on an Astro's game night? Really? It took me 30 minutes and $10 to enjoy my right to attend a public meeting (and my car was broken into, thank you). I didn't get inside until 7:00 but from that point on I think the speakers for and against were pretty much evenly divided. Unfortunately, I don't believe that is good enough. There may have been a possibility of the HAHC not passing the Ordinance as written if there was a SIGNIFICANT opposition, but I really doubt 50/50 will be enough to discourage them. If HAHC recommends it Planning will definitely pass it so the only place to stop it now is when it goes to City Council. If the opposition doesn't show up for that public meeting than it will be their own fault when this is imposed on them. I'm not going to have much symapathy at that point.

S2mh, If you were around for the original petition for the Historic District you would know that the ORIGINAL Ordinance provided for a 30 day waiver period. At that time you could submit for a demolition CoA and a plan CoA simultaneously, so the wait time was truly 30 days. In 2007 the Ordinance was changed to make the 6th Ward a Protected Historic District and at the same time the 90 day waiver was negotiated. That’s 90 days none concurrent so it totals 180 days to demolish and build a new non conforming house, The HAHC originally wanted 365 days but the builders said they would fight the whole Ordinance change if they didn’t change it to a more reasonable length of time. The builders traded the 6th Ward for 90 Days (I lobbied against the compromise because I thought it was just the first step in a progression of taking – I think I’m psychic). As for your statement: “You have notice that the rules could change because the historic distric is governed by an ORDINANCE. Ordinances are created, revised and repealed all the time by City Council. It is a ridiculous argument to claim that the ordinance could never be revised just because the ordinance affects real property or because people petitioned to create a historic distric. There is no bait and switch.” People who actually read the Ordinance and signed with full knowledge of what the Ordinance says would have read this: Sec 33-227 Amandment; changes in boundary Amendment of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archeological site and any change in the boundary of any historic district or archeological site shall require action by the city council and shall follow to procedures for application, notice, public hearing and recommendation by HAHC and the commission used for the original designation of the landmark, historic district or archeological site. Sec. 33-227 states that anyone who signed the original petition should have expected the City to follow the Ordinance and to RE-PETITION before implementing any changes to the Ordinance, thus giving the everyone the ability to not agree to any changes. To not follow the rules that are clearly stated in teh Ordinance IS a bait and switch.

For anyone interested: I recorded last nights meeting and have it as an mp3. If you would like to copy it I put it on my website but you'll need to email me for the link so you can download it. It's about 40 Mb so it's not very big but I don't have unlimited bandwidth so I don't want to just put the page out there. I don't care if you are for or against the Ordinance, if you want it just ask. you can email me at steven-at-scdesignllc.com

Marksmu, The only organized resistance to this right now is what the Historic Districters (I don't want to say "preservationists" because we are all in favor of preserving worthy structures, so I'll refer to them from now on as HDers)are terming "the vampire builder/architects/realtors group" who only care about, gasp, evilmoney. They, we (like I said I'm a designer/builder), can only do so much BECAUSE we have a percieved profit motive, regardless of how many of us live, work and invest in these areas. As we have been saying the property owners need to organize and be heard just like the HDers. The politicians can ignore us to an extent, but it's much harder to resist an organized constituancy when they shout with a united voice. HAR came out last week against this and the politicians will hear that, but it's not enough. You have to realize that a major part of the strategy of HDers, Sue Lovell and the Mayor, is to push this through before resistance can be organized and people can be informed. That is why they blindsided everyone with the suspension of the 90 day waiver over Memorial Day weekend, and why the schedule to get this to a City Council vote is so fast. When has the City EVER gotten an Ordinance through committee and to a Council vote in 3 months? Why do they need to have this passed by the end of September when the suspension of the 90 waiver is in affect until December 31, 2010? The HDers have been organized for years while the rest of the property owners sat back and let them have their way, and they are taking advantage of that now. I'm sure that if a group of property owners would like some guidance, and the beginnings of a structure, in starting their own group to fight this the existing "evil" group would be happy to lend a hand, but I/WE think it is important that the porperty owners take the lead on this. It will be too easy for the HDers to paint this as an evil money grab otherwise. For more information on the "evil" group in questions please go to the website: http://www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/ I'm not a major player in this yet, I'm just helping out online, but I'm going to be more involved from this point on. Feel free to contact me, or send an email through the website, and we can get you in touch with the pople that are organized now. If there is enough interest we could organize an open meeting for the public to discuss strategy and organization.

Also, the residents of the other Historic Districts, established and proposed, should know that they will NOT be included in the re-vote process. The support at the other public meetings was such that Sue Lovell does not believe that the is any meaningful opposition within those Districts so they will stand as they are. If you live in one of those Districts and oppose this new Ordinance it would be in your interest to make sure that they know about you.

As everyone pretty much expected the meeting tonight was different than the others. It looked like about 500 showed up and the opponents of the new ordinance were dominant. At the end Sue Lovell had a hand vote by District “For” and “Against” having a revote on the Historic District application. The vote broke down this way: Heights South: For – 65 / Against - 40 Heights West: For – 38 / Against - 25 Heights East: For – 49 / Against - 31 Because there was a clear majority in favor of a revote Sue said that there would be one (I recorded the meeting). Now we need to make the City, HAHC and Sue Lovell make very clear to us how this vote will be interpreted and we must insist on having access to the ballot preparation as well as the ballot counting. I see three ways that they could interpret the vote and the most likely one leaves the possibility of a majority “no” vote still resulting in the Historic District being adopted: Possibility 1, and in my opinion the least likely, is a democratic "for" or "against" vote for the whole District. They have already said that they will adjust the boundary to fit the support so I think this would be unlikely, though it makes the most sense and ould be the easiest. Possibility 2, and also unlikely, is a block by block determination. If they did this than there would likely be blocks scattered around and it would be very difficult to know what block was Historic and which wasn’t. This also would defeat the idea of what they are trying to accomplish. Possibility 3, and this is the one I think most likely because it would result in the largest amount of Historic District land, is the "electoral college" method. Example: Take a 3 block area as an example, each block having 20 houses and each house using their vote: Block 1 has 11 for the Historic District and 9 against, so it will count as FOR Block 2 has 20 houses against, so it will count as AGAINST Block 3 also have 11 for and 9 against, so it will count as FOR In this scenario the actual vote will be 38 AGAINST and 22 FOR, but it could be interpreted as 2 blocks FOR and 1 AGAINST so all three will be considered Historic because more than 51% of the BLOCKS are for it. I'm sure there are other permutations but you can be sure that whichever way yields the most land in Historic Districts is the method that will be used. We need to make sure this is an open and fair process and the on;y way to do that is have representation in every aspect of the process from this point onward. There is a very real possibility that this will be the way this vote is interpreted unless we make the City define EVERYTHING before they do this ballot. RedScare: They are going ot use the 51% number, not the 67%. Sue did make that clear.

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town: About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.