Jump to content

The Heights Historic Districts


Tiko

Recommended Posts

Thanks. I won't.

I plan to print your post to let my South Heights neighbors know what you think of their property rights. Thanks for putting it in such glaring terms.

Is this what's known as a veiled threat? I'm no lawyer ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. The Heights is going to become a ghetto. Thanks for proving my point that the opposition has no interest in historic preservation and only sees dollar signs. The Heights will become a ghetto the same day Manhattan, the Back Bay in Boston, Telegraph Hill in San Fran, and so on, become ghettos. People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft. And these people are going to let their houses decay because they will have to submit plans to HAHC for approval? Right. To the contrary, if the empty lot next door is going to be a giant monster mansion, there is no reason to maintain a historic bungalow because you are just throwing money at a property that won't get anything more than lot value. Just another example of the opposition using scare tactics to try to defeat historic preservation rather than constructively participate in the process to revise the historic ordinances.

Say what you want, but your vision of the future has no basis in reality. There are already a number of other fringe communities surrounding the city core with as equally viable housing stock as the Heights, and they're less expensive and have fewer restrictions. If someone were looking to purchase property to build a monster house that ultimately brings up all property values, would you really think they'd do it in an area where they weren't allowed to carry through with their plans? And, if it's as you suggest, and these McVic owners didn't give a turd about the quality of the schools, what's to stop them from going elsewhere? If it doesn't return the Heights to an urban ethnic ghetto, it will at least stem the growth that's so necessary to keep property values rising. It's not about supporting monied interests, as you couldn't have pegged me less accurately. It's about smart growth and compromise. The Heights is still valuable to potential buyers because of the lack of restrictions, and throw a wrench in that, and you've destroyed the single greatest thing about the place. You will have turned it into Woodland lite, and frankly, that's an odd group of people to pursue in the inner city. They add no cultural value to the neighborhood. They suck the life out of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's a veiled compliment! :D

Lawyer joke time! And to complete this circle of humor originality, wait'll you hear the joke I've got about a blonde who walks into a bar! It's a doozy!

Do you not find it interesting that both regular professed lawyers on this board, both of opposite ends of the political spectrum, dislike this ordinance?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawyer joke time! And to complete this circle of humor originality, wait'll you hear the joke I've got about a blonde who walks into a bar! It's a doozy!

Do you not find it interesting that both regular professed lawyers on this board, both of opposite ends of the political spectrum, dislike this ordinance?

In answer to the first: they ask for her ID.

In answer to the second: no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People already fight like hell to buy 1000-1500 sq ft bungalows for 275-300 per sq ft.

That's weird. I just searched har.com for 1000-15000 bungalows in the Houston Heights. 14 are listed. The most expensive one just reduced the asking price $115,000. Why would they do that if people were fighting like hell to buy it? The only other house priced above $275 psf ($276) also had a price reduction. Why is that?

You aren't making up crap again, are you?

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's weird. I just searched har.com for 1000-15000 bungalows in the Houston Heights. 14 are listed. The most expensive one just reduced the asking price $115,000. Why would they do that if people were fighting like hell to buy it? The only other house priced above $275 psf ($276) also had a price reduction. Why is that?

You aren't making up crap again, are you?

I think he was saying 1000-1500 sq ft, for $275-$300 PER SQ FT. I did a quick search too and found many in the 77008 zip. Here are the top 5 based on asking price. FWIW, I am against these changes to the ordinance, but I also don't think property values are going to crash if it gets signed. People do want to live in these bungalows because some people just like the character of them (and some don't).

$410,000, 1200 sq ft, $341/ft

$389,000, 1224 sq ft, $317/ft (Option Pending)

$365,000, 1341 sq ft, $272/ft (Option Pending, Continue to Show)

$365,000, 1382 sq ft, $264/ft

$360,000, 1372 sq ft, $262/ft

Signed,

Not making up crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's weird. I just searched har.com for 1000-15000 bungalows in the Houston Heights. 14 are listed. The most expensive one just reduced the asking price $115,000. Why would they do that if people were fighting like hell to buy it? The only other house priced above $275 psf ($276) also had a price reduction. Why is that?

You aren't making up crap again, are you?

Seems like I've seen some price reductions in McMansions too. Welcome to the 2010's

Who wants to buy a 5-year old pseudo Victorian, when new ones cost no more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was saying 1000-1500 sq ft, for $275-$300 PER SQ FT. I did a quick search too and found many in the 77008 zip. Here are the top 5 based on asking price. FWIW, I am against these changes to the ordinance, but I also don't think property values are going to crash if it gets signed. People do want to live in these bungalows because some people just like the character of them (and some don't).

$410,000, 1200 sq ft, $341/ft

$389,000, 1224 sq ft, $317/ft (Option Pending)

$365,000, 1341 sq ft, $272/ft (Option Pending, Continue to Show)

$365,000, 1382 sq ft, $264/ft

$360,000, 1372 sq ft, $262/ft

Signed,

Not making up crap

I used "Houston Heights" instead of "77008", since we were discussing the Heights, but even using your search term, most of the same homes are on there. And, my point is still the same. Only 2 homes are listed at $275 psf or above, and both had reduced prices, suggesting there wasn't much of a fight to buy them at those prices. Interestingly, the only one of those houses located in a historic district is number 5, on 1105 Tulane. They had to reduce their price 18% for lack of takers.

So much for historic districts hiking property values.

Signed,

Yes you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used "Houston Heights" instead of "77008", since we were discussing the Heights, but even using your search term, most of the same homes are on there. And, my point is still the same. Only 2 homes are listed at $275 psf or above, and both had reduced prices, suggesting there wasn't much of a fight to buy them at those prices. Interestingly, the only one of those houses located in a historic district is number 5, on 1105 Tulane. They had to reduce their price 18% for lack of takers.

So much for historic districts hiking property values.

Signed,

Yes you are

Curious if homes outside of historic districts would be enjoying a boost in market value due to these proposed changes? Seems that way under these arguments.

Signed,

Just trying to post some facts with real data points (a change for some on this thread)...not you Red

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious if homes outside of historic districts would be enjoying a boost in market value due to these proposed changes? Seems that way under these arguments.

Signed,

Just trying to post some facts with real data points (a change for some on this thread)...not you Red

My limited, but nonpolitical research suggests that there is and will continue to be. I have been mildly debating whether to sell my house for several months (long before the historic district issue cropped up). The reasons appear to me to be that the new, larger homes that everyone complains about drive up prices for the smaller homes nearby. Take my street. Across the street from me are 6 new large homes of 3200 to 4000 square feet. They are valued at $650,000 to $850,000. By comparison, my house is 1358 square feet plus a garage gameroom at 600 feet. If I sell at $425,000, it looks like a bargain on my street. But, if everything around me was my size, I would be limited by the lower prices.

My realtor doesn't think a historic district designation will move prices a dollar either way, for the simple reason that buyers do not pay attention. They'll look at my cute remodeled kitchen and brand new garage and that's all they need. He may well have a valid point.

EDIT: I should point out that I didn't find huge differences between historic and non-historic homes, but if I sell I don't want anything impacting my price at all, even a small drop.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to the first: they ask for her ID.

Not where I was going with that, but I like where you're going with it nonetheless. Metahumor rawks the internet.

In answer to the second: no.

Why not? I'm not saying they're better able to read than you or I, but surely, at least during their training, they've been exposed to the acrimony cause by the ambiguity of certain written laws. And speaking of which, how many tax payer dollars do you think will be spent defending this ordinance in courts if it's passed? I'm betting at least one million dollars. Anyone want to take the over/under?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was saying 1000-1500 sq ft, for $275-$300 PER SQ FT. I did a quick search too and found many in the 77008 zip. Here are the top 5 based on asking price. FWIW, I am against these changes to the ordinance, but I also don't think property values are going to crash if it gets signed. People do want to live in these bungalows because some people just like the character of them (and some don't).

$410,000, 1200 sq ft, $341/ft

$389,000, 1224 sq ft, $317/ft

$365,000, 1341 sq ft, $272/ft

$365,000, 1382 sq ft, $264/ft

$360,000, 1372 sq ft, $262/ft

Signed,

Not making up crap

Cherry-picking your data from the very top is not dishonest but it is disingenuous. Any consumer that wants to can run statistical analysis using HAR's data. Run your query exactly as you did, then select to view it as a list and to view all results. Then copy and paste into Excel and have at it.

That's what I did for lot listings and house listings fitting your 1,000-to-1,500-square-foot criteria. I'm tempted to go nuts with multivariate regression, but I'll keep it simple to make a point...

The average lot price equates to $29.43 per square foot of land. The average home price equates to $41.18. So approximately 28.5% of the average residential property's value is attributable to improvements.

The average price per square foot of building area for single-family listings was $203.86, of which only 28.5% of the value, or $58.18, might be attributable to improvements. The average size of a house was 1,236 square feet, meaning that the average house in 77008 is valued at $71,910.

And that's perfectly intuitive! The average house in the Heights doesn't get demolished because it is still in demand, whether significantly upgraded (as can be witnessed in the top quartile) or depreciated somewhat but moderately-well maintained (as in the middle three quartiles). The bottom quartile of homes are ____, sometimes more of an impairment to the value of land than an asset.

The fact that existing houses of these characteristics are still demanded within the marketplace is reason to question the necessity or purpose of the proposed ordinance, and the fact that the underlying land value is so disproportionately high relative to the value of the house is reason enough for a reasonable homeowner to at least express concern for the specifics regarding the ordinance. Having the entire neighborhood's land values impaired by a HAHC stigma would not be desirable...and could in time spill over to the improvement value, as Red has pointed out.

I knock you uppity Heights folks for being racist, but deep down, I know that you're just like me...greedy as all hell and merely disinterested in your impacts upon others. The racism is merely incidental. I urge you to approach this issue with universal skepticism towards all viewpoints. ...and to stop cherry-picking data, which makes you look like d-bags.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you want, but your vision of the future has no basis in reality. There are already a number of other fringe communities surrounding the city core with as equally viable housing stock as the Heights, and they're less expensive and have fewer restrictions.

May be the best argument for the ordinance in this thread. If someone in the Heights doesn't want to deal with the restrictions, they can reap their profits and move. Reducing their mortgage and increasing their equity in the process...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May be the best argument for the ordinance in this thread. If someone in the Heights doesn't want to deal with the restrictions, they can reap their profits and move. Reducing their mortgage and increasing their equity in the process...

Or you get a real estate panic when a bunch of stock is dumped on the market at the same time, inevitably driving down total values of all homes in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you get a real estate panic when a bunch of stock is dumped on the market at the same time, inevitably driving down total values of all homes in the area.

Anything is possible. Are there any examples of that in the other historic district in Houston, or other cities?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything is possible. Are there any examples of that in the other historic district in Houston, or other cities?

I think you'll find Houston's situation is rather unique. As such, my opinion is based on educated guesswork more than anything else - just like everyone else here. We can be drawn to any number of possible conclusions in order to support our preconceptions. The only thing we know for certain about this ordinance is that it will arbitrarily impose regulations upon homeowners who had purchased their property without the restrictions already in place and without giving them the ability to opt in or out. As to how exactly it'll play out over the decade or so following, we've yet to see. However, another couple things we do know about human behavior is 1) Power corrupts, and 2) Whenever humans panic, we tend to do it as a mob. If a handful of people feel the board start to overextend their power, then you can pretty much guarantee those homeowners will cut their losses and sell. Whether it'll cause a wave of similar activity from other homeowners has yet to be seen. I will say this though, I'm glad I don't have a horse in this race and don't own in the Heights. I'd hate to be a guinea pig in this little experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can check with a fellow HAIF poster and fellow preservationist, heights yankee, who is on the board of Proctor Plaza Historic District. She stated in this very forum that only 3 homes were demolished in the 10 years of historic district staus WITH the 90 day waiting period. That is irrefutable proof that the old ordinance worked.

Ugh. I just typed out a thoughtful and articulate answer to this and when I hit the send button my computer ate the freaking post. I will try to duplicate my genius for you again here...

So, actually this statement isn't accurate. It has not been the 90 day rule that has preserved the homes in my neighborhood, North Norhill/Proctor Plaza. Very few people apply for teardown variances here because of our deed restrictions, which have a lot of control (not all exercised) over new constructions. It is extremely difficult to build a large McCraftsman here, no thanks to the 90 day rule. As long as I have lived here, all applications for tear downs have been approved by the neighborhood association and the HCAC save one- the infamous home at 801 Pizer. They requested a variance to tear down and were denied by the HCAC and pleaded with by their neighbors but they tore it down anyway after the 90 day wait. This is the only one that could have and should have been saved and it fell after 90 days anyway. The other tear downs in this area needed to go due to condition issues (although one was 'demolition by neglect' which is such a sad and shady way of doing it- intentionally letting your property fall in to a dangerous state of disrepair so you can tear it down in hopes of making bigger money. It didn't work and the lot is still vacant. This is not a case study in why the deed restrictions are dangerous or wrong, either, as it is 1 house out of 850. It's rare anywhere to find such a homeowner who is willing to do that with their investment.)

We have roughly 1% new construction and this is primarily because of our neighborhood deed restrictions, which are strikingly similar to what the HCAC is trying to move forward with. Yes, I do favor preservation generally but I also live with in restrictions similar to the ones being proposed already and I see, 1st hand, how they benefit my neighborhood and do no harm to property owners. We are still a very eclectic neighborhood and diverse from a socio-economic standpoint. Our deed restrictions provide for this and protect this, not make it impossible as others have suggested.

Also, values. 2 examples- a bungalow with a large addition on the back recently sold with in 8 days of being listed. Listing price: $500k (Melwood). Another home is a 2/1 with the original footprint and a teeny sunroom added off the larger bedroom in back. It had an offer over asking price within 48hours of being on the market. Asking price was ~$329k. Both cases here are friends of ours. If you search HAR for 77009, you can see 2/1s that sold in the high $200ks or low $300ks, then there are the ones with additions selling for quite a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go. An elegant an educational post that shows exactly how it should be done. Those who buy into the neighborhood buy into the deed restrictions as well. Nothing is hidden, nothing sprung on the homeowners after the fact, and no strong arm tactics by elected officials who were theoretically elected to serve their constituents. Somehow, when I try to explain that deed restrictions are a better solution, I am seen as the enemy, mostly by those who believe their vision should be inflicted upon their neighbors without recourse. But, heights yankee is one of the preservationists. She explained how only ONE homeowner waited out the 90 days in the last 10 years (sorry I was wrong about the 3). Unfortunately, in spite of the resounding success of the deed restriction approach, heights yankee still supports the draconian approach of a city ordinance (unless she's changed her mind).

A couple of things I'd like to point out to the couple of posters who will invariably label me a realtor or builder. I am neither. My property is deed restricted, one of the few on my block, and it was when I bought the house. I have no intention of violating it. Additionally, my block is governed by the lot line ordinance, though I have always argued that this promotes the building of larger homes. And, lastly, when I sell, it won't be in the high 200s or low 300s. It will be more like the low 400s. And I don't have a large addition on the back of my house, or anywhere else, for that matter. I do, however, have a brand new garage in back with a 2nd floor gameroom. I don't know if these anecdotes prove that the historic district homes sell for less than the non-restricted areas, but please understand that I do not want to find out.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended the meeting last week and have seen the flyers and website set up by the self-appointed opposition. The op-ed is a pretty tame treatment of the opposition.

The op ed treatment was tame? She claims at the end to want an "honest adult discussion" but she distorted facts, and made assumptions throughout her op ed. The chronicle would NEVER allow a dissenting piece to make it on its pages, so there is nothing honest or adult about this discussion at all...just more propoganda.

http://www.responsib...eservation.org/ is a website set up by a "group" (it isn't a non-profit) led by three prominent Heights area realtors. The op-ed was very kind not to point out the glaring conflict of interest. What is most telling about this "group" is that they actually claim that self-imposed deed restrictions and landmarking are better than even the existing historic district ordinance. Thus, this group doesn't just oppose the changes, they oppose any government initiated historic district ordinance.

Actually its huge and on the bottom of the home page....Why realtors....I dont really consider that dishonest. Not as much so as distorting facts to get your way and impose your beliefs on your neighbors.

The "scare tactics" are needed because many legitimate complaints with the ordinance could be easily remedied by better language. The ordinance needs to be more specific on the perameters for expansion, restoration and demolition. Too much discretion is placed in the hands of HAHC. But the realtors do not ask for this. Instead, they argue based on a 2002 op-ed addressing a different version of the ordinance and a single statement by a HAHC official that the ordinance is just the tip of the iceberg, and HAHC will dictate whether you can hang your toilet paper in the overhand or underhand fashion. If the extent of the authority of HAHC is a concern, work to better define and limit it. Do not tell tales about the HAHC governing paint color and AC placement in a dark post-apocalyptic future where HAHC robots monitor our every move.

They are not asking us to fix the language or clarify their crappy ordinance for them...they are cramming it down our throats as is. I have posted it time and time again. The ordinance as written CAN dictate paint color and AC placement whether or not they tell you it cant. The language is broad enough to allow it. We could actually come to some agreements that make everyone happy if the discussion were open and actually allowed. They are not asking for a discussion on the topic they are cramming what is written down our throats and just hoping to get it done before enough people wise up on what is being done.

The revised ordinance will have virtually no effect on them, unless their house burned down to the ground. But if that is the only concern, address it in the revisions. Don't kill of historic preservation for everyone else because you want to be able to rebuild your block busting mansion in case of a fire.

Well I am sure they feel much better knowing that if their house burns down they can not rebuild their home the way THEY want.....rather they have to rebuild it the way YOU want. Im sure that gives them a warm fuzzy feeling all over. Now lets all get together and cram our beliefs down everyone elses throats whether they want it or not. AND AGAIN - they are not asking us to help revise the ordinance. They are voting it into LAW the way it is currently written. What part of that are you not understanding?

Also, the number of true teardown properties in the Heights is quickly diminishing. That means that investors will start looking at properties that are in good condition for demolition and will be looking to build as many sq ft as possible to cover the higher lot price for a bungalow that has been updated. If the Houston economy got rolling again, it could mean the end of most of the historic bungalows in the Heights and the rise of a faux historic River Oaks/Bellaire neighborhood.

Speculation, and nothing more. Some people want small bungalows in nice areas. The cheapest home in the nicest neighborhood is always the easiest home to sell. The bungalows are benefiting from the new construction, plain and simple. This is most likely as much about not wanting taxes to go up as the area continues to improve as it is about preservation.

And then there are lots of arguments that are just self-serving and silly. People claim that the bungalows must go in order to attract families to the Heights to support the public schools. If you build a 4500 sq ft house on a lot and sell it for 800-1mi, do you really think that family will be sending their kids to Field or Browning? Smaller and more affordable housing will bring in the kind of families who are willing to put the time into bringing the schools up to snuff, not monster mansions.

Here you are wrong again. Having a Smaller bungalow or a larger home does not mean that the people who live in them are any different at all. That argument just shows your bias against not just the home, but also the people who buy them. You apparently are offended and afraid of people who have more money than you. I wonder what went so wrong in your life that you have such hatred of those who may have more than you.

Finally, the claim that this ordinance works a "constructive [sic] condemnation", as one poorly informed opposition questioner asked at the meeting, is not credible. The government is not the virtual insurer of property values. Anyone purchasing in the Heights over the past decade has been on notice that the neighborhood is full of historic homes and has been actively seeking historic preservation ordinances. The Heights neighborhood is one of the most sought after real estate markets in the entire city. As the City grows and gas prices go back through the roof, property values in the Heights will continue to climb through the roof. In California, bungalows go for 500-700k compared to 300-500k in Houston. There is still plenty of appreciation left and no reasonable investment back expectation has been harmed.

Its absolutely a credible argument. Condemnation has nothing at all to do with insuring the value of the property. Rather it places a value upon the loss of property rights that were present at the time of purchase and are removed without compensation or agreement. I guess you are an attorney and all your legal knowledge is at work here.

Your "On Notice" argument is also worthless. There is no "notice" that you could have the rules changed just because you bought an older home. Its a ridiculous argument.

The less like California that Texas remains, the better this State will be. California is a model state of things NOT to do. It is a bankrupt state full of some of the worst ideas/planning/governing in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your "On Notice" argument is also worthless. There is no "notice" that you could have the rules changed just because you bought an older home. Its a ridiculous argument.

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. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

They can be revised either way, either more lax or more draconian. And, simply because they can be revised doesn't mean they will. Regardless, if there is no ordinance, there's nothing to be revised. Again, give existing homeowners the ability to opt in or out, and make this ordinance mandatory for new buyers and the entire debate disappears. Why can't that be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. The petition created a historic district that would be governed by an ordinance, not by an unchangeable restriction that is recorded in the real property records. When someone signed the petition, they were agreeing to be in a historic district governed by an ordinance. They were not singing a contract. They were not creating a deed restriction. It is like voting for annexation by a municipality but then complaining when the municipality changes an ordinance. Ordinances are ordinances.

And what about the people who signed nothing at all? Who simply bought a house with no restrictions and not inside an existing historic district and with no ordinance at all? What about that huge group of people? Most of the people who signed the petition were uninformed or worse..They were intentionally uninformed and misled. It is pretty clear to everyone involved now that this has been on their agenda for a long time. Whether you can be honest enough to admit it was a bait and switch, the reality is that a bait and switch is exactly what it was. They promised one thing to get the ball rolling got a bunch of folks all fired up about living next door to huge condominiums, and three story town homes, and now they are attempting to enact something completely different...something the majority of people do not want.

I did not sign, agree, or have any notice whatsoever that the city was planning on taking my private property rights. It is just happening. The city, the dishonest preservation group, the chronicle, the mayor, and the HAHC, are now just attempting to cram these changes through as quickly as possible before the people have time to get wind of it, and stand up and stop it. I believe if properly informed the majority of people would never sign on to have this type of restriction imposed upon them. The key here is "if properly informed" this has been as dishonest, and political as anything I can remember.

Most people I think are in favor of reasonable restrictions. Minimum lot size, setbacks, height, etc. I do not believe that most people are against new construction, remodeling, or in the case of new construction forcing people to build what some political group thinks is historical new construction (what a joke). There are already areas that have the restrictions you seem to covet...Woodland Heights seems to have all the restrictions you covet, and you see no complaining about anything there, because they all knew what they were getting when they bought. It was not a surprise to them to have a whole new set of rules forced upon them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the people who signed nothing at all? Who simply bought a house with no restrictions and not inside an existing historic district and with no ordinance at all? What about that huge group of people? Most of the people who signed the petition were uninformed or worse..They were intentionally uninformed and misled. It is pretty clear to everyone involved now that this has been on their agenda for a long time. Whether you can be honest enough to admit it was a bait and switch, the reality is that a bait and switch is exactly what it was. They promised one thing to get the ball rolling got a bunch of folks all fired up about living next door to huge condominiums, and three story town homes, and now they are attempting to enact something completely different...something the majority of people do not want.

I did not sign, agree, or have any notice whatsoever that the city was planning on taking my private property rights. It is just happening. The city, the dishonest preservation group, the chronicle, the mayor, and the HAHC, are now just attempting to cram these changes through as quickly as possible before the people have time to get wind of it, and stand up and stop it. I believe if properly informed the majority of people would never sign on to have this type of restriction imposed upon them. The key here is "if properly informed" this has been as dishonest, and political as anything I can remember.

Most people I think are in favor of reasonable restrictions. Minimum lot size, setbacks, height, etc. I do not believe that most people are against new construction, remodeling, or in the case of new construction forcing people to build what some political group thinks is historical new construction (what a joke). There are already areas that have the restrictions you seem to covet...Woodland Heights seems to have all the restrictions you covet, and you see no complaining about anything there, because they all knew what they were getting when they bought. It was not a surprise to them to have a whole new set of rules forced upon them.

Quite to the contrary, the 90 day waiver was extremely unpopular when it was included in the ordinance. The 90 day waiver was included as a concession based on representations of builders and investors that the waiver period would be used constructively and not just be an additional cost of doing business in the Heights. If there was a bait and switch, this was it. Once the ordinance went into place, the builders just factored in the 90 day waiver and went on about as their business as they had always done.

Deed restrictions do not work when a block has been busted. If there is an existing house on the block that does not conform to the restrictions, you can't have them. Most every block in the Heights has at least one or two houses that are outside the kind of restrictions that would preserve the block. The deed restrictions worked great in Norhill because practically every house was a single story bungalow with the original setback. There are too many new construction outliers in the Heights to make that work.

As for the takings, you have to show that your reasonable investment backed expectations have been harmed. Under Penn Central, the USC held that there was no taking even though Penn Central could not build a giant skyscraper over the top of the building. In the Heights, anyone who owns property will still be able to make a profit on their investment by renovating, adding on or demolishing and building a compatible new structure. The government is not required to pay property owners if historic preservation laws keep them from realizing the maximum return on their investment. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are protected, not the entire investment backed expectation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

s3mh,

I have said this before, you CAN deed restrict your own property. I realize that this does not protect your entire block, but it does protect your home and any of your neighbors homes who share your belief and want to preserve what they have. These restrictions last for 20 years, and only YOU can "bust" them. You can customize them anyway you chose.

I understand that you want block by block protection, but that is not the spirit of the Heights, that is not what made this neighborhood so appealing to such a diverse group of people.

I remember seeing a yard sign in the Heights about 4 years ago, and I only ever saw one, it was in the 600 block of Oxford. It said, "I moved to the Heights to AVOID restrictions".

Don't forget that this is part of the fabric of the Heights, you may not like it, but it is not going away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does s3mh keep talking as if my house was in an historic district when I bought it. It was NOT historic when I bought it. In addition, when the petitioners came around 3 years ago, South Heights voted AGAINST historic district status. Now, they are cramming it down our throats. What makes s3mh think that I am at fault when there was NO historic district and we voted NO? Why does HE get to tell me what to do with my property?

What's most infuriating about s3mh's argument that his opinion counts more than mine is that I was here FIRST! Why does he get to come in a year ago and change the rules for me? Why don't I get to change his rules?

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry-picking your data from the very top is not dishonest but it is disingenuous. Any consumer that wants to can run statistical analysis using HAR's data. Run your query exactly as you did, then select to view it as a list and to view all results. Then copy and paste into Excel and have at it.

That's what I did for lot listings and house listings fitting your 1,000-to-1,500-square-foot criteria. I'm tempted to go nuts with multivariate regression, but I'll keep it simple to make a point...

The average lot price equates to $29.43 per square foot of land. The average home price equates to $41.18. So approximately 28.5% of the average residential property's value is attributable to improvements.

The average price per square foot of building area for single-family listings was $203.86, of which only 28.5% of the value, or $58.18, might be attributable to improvements. The average size of a house was 1,236 square feet, meaning that the average house in 77008 is valued at $71,910.

And that's perfectly intuitive! The average house in the Heights doesn't get demolished because it is still in demand, whether significantly upgraded (as can be witnessed in the top quartile) or depreciated somewhat but moderately-well maintained (as in the middle three quartiles). The bottom quartile of homes are ____, sometimes more of an impairment to the value of land than an asset.

The fact that existing houses of these characteristics are still demanded within the marketplace is reason to question the necessity or purpose of the proposed ordinance, and the fact that the underlying land value is so disproportionately high relative to the value of the house is reason enough for a reasonable homeowner to at least express concern for the specifics regarding the ordinance. Having the entire neighborhood's land values impaired by a HAHC stigma would not be desirable...and could in time spill over to the improvement value, as Red has pointed out.

I knock you uppity Heights folks for being racist, but deep down, I know that you're just like me...greedy as all hell and merely disinterested in your impacts upon others. The racism is merely incidental. I urge you to approach this issue with universal skepticism towards all viewpoints. ...and to stop cherry-picking data, which makes you look like d-bags.

Listen, I don't have the time to tear through the data, nor do I care to. Since I live in an old bungalow, I regularly search HAR for other old bungalows to see what the going rate is. So, when Red mentioned $75/sq ft in his post, I knew there was a misunderstanding of what was being said. And I didn't cherry pick the data. As I stated, I took the output as it came across, did 5 simple calcs, and realized there must have been a misunderstanding. I did NOT cherry pick the $/sq ft data. I just looked at the first five, which happened to be the most expensive in raw dollars. I'm sure there were others that were even more expensive per sq ft, especially as you get to the smaller houses (1000-1100 sq ft).

Why is it that you consistently try to elevate everything into such ugliness? I think the name calling and stereo-typing is tired and unnecessary incidentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...