The Heights Historic Districts

[RedScare]

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.

That was a typo. I corrected it to $275, apparently right after you read it.

[TheNiche]

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?

The rules are not sacred. Even the rules acknowledge that the rules can be changed. When you buy property, you take on known risks, including the risk that the political environment may shift dramatically. There is nothing wrong with greedy d-bags trying to manipulate the rules to their personal advantage, but perhaps it is a signal that your kind is no longer welcome in the Heights and is your cue to cash out.

Consider the bright side. Next year, when you--or your buyer--hire me to protest the value of your new improvements , we'll be able to pull the 'Historic District impairment to land value' card. That'll be an interesting experiment. (And I'd bet that they'd be almost as willing to accept the argument as they are for land in a floodway, for hurricane-damaged properties, or as that a flipped coin landed on heads.)

[TheNiche]

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.

You selected the five most expensive properties and that's not cherry-picking? If you aren't going to put thought and effort into your posts, don't bother.

[poyea]

You selected the five most expensive properties and that's not cherry-picking? If you aren't going to put thought and effort into your posts, don't bother.

If I really wanted to try to cherry pick data, I would have done this, and sorted by $/sq ft. You'll see that the highest $/sq ft homes aren't necessarily the highest PRICED homes...I just originally picked those since they were the easiest (as I clearly explained). If I need to explain this data any further, don't bother asking.

(sorry about the formatting)

Price

Rank Price Sq Ft $/sq ft $/sq ft Rank

1 $410,000 1197 $342.52 1

2 $389,000 1224 $317.81 2

14 $312,500 1014 $308.19 3

10 $325,000 1093 $297.35 4

11 $324,900 1150 $282.52 5

3 $365,000 1341 $272.18 6

12 $319,900 1180 $271.10 7

9 $325,000 1217 $267.05 8

4 $364,900 1382 $264.04 9

5 $359,900 1372 $262.32 10

Edited August 19, 2010 by poyea

[TheNiche]

If I really wanted to try to cherry pick data, I would have done this, and sorted by $/sq ft. You'll see that the highest $/sq ft homes aren't necessarily the highest PRICED homes...I just originally picked those since they were the easiest (as I clearly explained). If I need to explain this data any further, don't bother asking.

(sorry about the formatting)

Price

Rank Price Sq Ft $/sq ft $/sq ft Rank

1 $410,000 1197 $342.52 1

2 $389,000 1224 $317.81 2

14 $312,500 1014 $308.19 3

10 $325,000 1093 $297.35 4

11 $324,900 1150 $282.52 5

3 $365,000 1341 $272.18 6

12 $319,900 1180 $271.10 7

9 $325,000 1217 $267.05 8

4 $364,900 1382 $264.04 9

5 $359,900 1372 $262.32 10

So out of 79 listing matching your criteria, you replaced the top five with the top ten--not one of which had a below-average price per square foot of enclosed space!--and that's not cherry-picking?

You just stepped in your own pile. That's embarrassing.

[poyea]

So out of 79 listing matching your criteria, you replaced the top five with the top ten--not one of which had a below-average price per square foot of enclosed space!--and that's not cherry-picking?

You just stepped in your own pile. That's embarrassing.

...................

I list it based on price, I list it based on price/sq ft....what do you want? All I was trying to say was there are SOME bungalows out there that are going for more than $75/sq ft. You accused me of cherry picking since I chose the list based on the highest asking price. So I re-sort based on highest price per sq ft to prove my point that I wasn't cherry picking. Listen, I know there are homes for LESS than $150/ft, and who knows, some even less.

.....................

Edited August 19, 2010 by bachanon

[TheNiche]

Good lord. You're an idiot.

I list it based on price, I list it based on price/sq ft....what do you want? All I was trying to say was there are SOME bungalows out there that are going for more than $75/sq ft. You accused me of cherry picking since I chose the list based on the highest asking price. So I re-sort based on highest price per sq ft to prove my point that I wasn't cherry picking. Listen, I know there are homes for LESS than $150/ft, and who knows, some even less.

Good lord. I think you're the "pile".

Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Your post has been reported to the moderators.

[TheNiche]

"and, with that, she took her leave, her golden curls indignantly shaking."

ad hominem

[heights]

Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Your post has been reported to the moderators.

Since you decided to use the term "Ad hominem" in not just one post, but two, you might want to see if the "attacks" actually fit the definition of Ad hominem attacks (they didn't). From http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html you'll see that "The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there." There are plenty of examples if you follow that link or research the term elsewhere.

Edited August 19, 2010 by heights

[TheNiche]

"The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there."

True. However, their intent to undermine my argument is implicit.

[OutfieldDan]

So, what's the deal about the meeting tonight? This is a HAHC public comment meeting. What is the purpose of the meeting and who will be attending that can affect the City Council's vote? Is Gonzalez going to be there, or any other city councel members? The mayor?

I actually have no beef with the HAHC. Their job is to enforce our historic ordinance as it is written and the problem is not the HAHC, but the proposed ordinance. Maybe the media will be there (for a change) and if enough go to protest the changed ordinance, they will report it.

I notice that the meeting is going to be in a large room at the Geo R Brown Conv Center (General Assembly Hall B, 3rd floor). It would be good to have a large representation there that correctly mirrors our neighborhood's opposition.

[OutfieldDan]

The historic activists were out in force at last night's meeting. By number, public comments were much in favor of the proposed changes to the ordinance. Because this was a public forum where anyone could speak for two minutes, it was an opportunity for our neighborhood to express our opposition for a change instead of just being allowed to write a question on a piece of paper. It's too bad the side of property freedom was not represented with more comments. The historic activists were obviously well organized, wearing tshirts with their logo and labels saying to preserve history.

There were many comments by the activists that were troubling to me. Several preservation activists said that there should not be a re-petition, that it is unlawful for a re-vote, and that it would ruin four years of effort. One even said that if there is a re-vote, no one from a new home should be allowed to vote because they are not affected by the changes. The overwhelming phrases they used was that it was for the greater public good, and that it's unfortunate that some might be harmed.

Where was everybody?

[SCDesign]

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.

Edited August 20, 2010 by SCDesign

[Gooch]

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).

So it wasn't the same for everyone? Did the HAHC give away free parking and police escort to the supporters to avoid the parking and traffic? WOW!

Edited August 20, 2010 by Gooch

[s3mh]

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.

Nice try. You changed the language of 33-227. Here is what it actually says:

Amendment of any designation of any landmark, protected landmark, historic district or archaeological site and any change in the boundaries of any historic district or archaeological site . . . .

(emphasis added)

Not even the opponents of the revisions have tried to make this argument because it is plainly false. The section of the ordinance you cite only has to do with amendments to the designation of a historic district (etc.) or changes in the boundaries. This section simply refers to changes to the designation of a district and not changes to the ordinance that governs the district.

The funny thing is that this section of the ordinance prohibits Sue Lovell's "re-polling" of districts. Historic districts are either historic districts or they are not. If a historic district does not want to be a historic district, they must follow the process set forth in 33-222 et seq. There is no ordinance giving the City the power to "re-poll" districts. The City does not have the power to do so. Nothing in the revised ordinance gives the City that power. The City can't do it. It is just that simple.

I went to the meeting last night. It is interesting what happens when people actually have to stand up and speak to the decision makers and community. The opposition has been howling about how they didn't get to speak at the public meetings. But, when they got their chance, they didn't have much to say. People blame the ordinance for scaring off builders, but haven't we hit a bit of a rough patch in the economy recently? And the ordinance did nothing to scare off the builders at Rutland and 15th. And the guy who called out the owners of new construction was not tactful, but made a valid point. What decade will it be when they need to do anything that will require HAHC approval, if ever? Sure, I understand the point about rebuilding after a fire. But, why not just urge revision to that section. Why knock down all the other bungalows when you already got to do it?

And that is really the tragedy of the whole thing. There are plenty of areas for compromise and plenty of problems with HAHC that should be addressed. But, the realtor lead opposition decided to make this a kill the historic districts campaign without any room for middle ground.

I talked to some of the "yes" people last night and have talked to a bunch of neighbors. From my neighbors, I am hearing that they have become disenchanted with the blue sign campaign because it is so clearly over the top with their arguments about house paint and AC placement. Many were handed blue signs to put in their yard and, upon further investigation, have removed the sings. I also met some very interesting people from the "yes" campaign that have done extraordinary things to preserve their historic homes. What this boils down to is that the Heights is the Heights because people have made major investments in preserving and maintaining historic homes. This is what separates the Heights from the rest of the City. Builders have capitalized on the work of preservationists. If the Heights was full of 1970s ranches, no one would pay 700-900k for a 3500 sq ft faux victorian on a 6600 sq ft lot. We are now at a turning point where the new builds are threatening the very people who made the neighborhood desirable. But people in historic homes have no way to recover the cost externalities of the new builds. Thus, it is certainly within the power of the City to address this market inefficieny and to reward those who invested so much to preserve the historic character of the Heights. This is really the last stand for the historic buildings in the Heights. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

[RedScare]

This is really the last stand for the historic buildings in the Heights. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

Where's a crying Indian when you need one. Oh, here we go...

Seriously, can we lay off the 'bungalows as people' rhetoric? Your argument is that a 90 year old house, one of thousands in Houston and 10s of thousands in the US, is more important than the person who owns it, so important that the government may swoop in and effectively take it from me, merely allowing me to live in it, but only if I fix it up the way they say. It is all so disgusting, so reminiscent of a communist country. I mean, really, people stood up in public and said this district is 'for the greater public good'? It's all just about enough to make me barf in my historic spitton on my back porch.

[SCDesign]

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.

Edited August 20, 2010 by SCDesign

[Gary]

Seriously, can we lay off the 'bungalows as people' rhetoric? Your argument is that a 90 year old house, one of thousands in Houston and 10s of thousands in the US, is more important than the person who owns it, so important that the government may swoop in and effectively take it from me, merely allowing me to live in it, but only if I fix it up the way they say. It is all so disgusting, so reminiscent of a communist country. I mean, really, people stood up in public and said this district is 'for the greater public good'? It's all just about enough to make me barf in my historic spitton on my back porch.

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

[RedScare]

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

I'm telling ya, I really do! This insistence of my neighbors that their wish to look at pretty bungalows gives them the right to take over design of my house by government fiat, plus the belief that they can decide which retailers build stores several miles away, has just about soured me on liberal ideals. I believe in helping my neighbor, not telling him how to keep his house. It is rather stunning that some people feel so strongly that they can do this. It's not like I'm building a mosque next door to them or something.

If they only wanted to restrict themselves and their districts from doing anything, I'd be fine with it. After all, I have no desire to tell Norhill residents or North Heights residents how to live. But, they are not satisfied with simply legislating themselves out of house and home, they want to come down to South Heights and do it to me.....without letting me vote on my own property!

Misery loves company, I guess.

[Krol]

The supporters were definately better organized last night. The majority of them were also more rational. The opponents suffer from an angry disposition that doesn't play well in that type of situation. The property rights argument appears to be losing steam because the supporters have a point that they have the right to maintain their investments and what they bought into. My version of property rights may not be your version. It can be argued both ways.

There's also growing realization among the Mcmansion types that no protection could mean that the little bungalow next door gets replaced in favor of density. The Heights has been lucky so far. However, take a little drive down west 15th street between the Blvd. and Shepherd...consider the townhomes being built over at the ole Ashland Tea House site or the condos currently planned for Studewood behind Someburger. Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

The count last night was roughly 40/30 in favor of stronger protections. Among the 30 who stated their opposition, four were from one property on Kipling, one was from the Houston Property Rights Association (who said he is actually a renter), one was from the Houston Association of Realtors, two were part of the trio of realtors who have formed the anti-preservation website, one worked for one member of that realtor trio and at least one was a Heights builder.

It seems as if the more the facts get out there, the more people are calming down. CM Lovell indicated at city council this week that a new draft is being compiled. I'll bet it will incorporate a lot of the suggestions that have been made. This is the sausage-making process that always occurs with the crafting of new legislation.

Think about what might happen with no protection and instead of misinformation about paint color, air conditioners and front porch lights, grab a sausage link and take part in the messy process to create a better proposal?

[TheNiche]

Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

Really?

...REALLY!?

[TheNiche]

Careful Red, you almost sound republican here.

Funny, that's exactly what I thought about all the white non-sportsmen wearing white fishing shirts and toting Anti-Wal-Mart yard signs at White Linen Night was that they looked like Republicans from The Woodlands. And in fact, they are doing very Republican things. They're waging a class war and imposing restrictions upon their neighbors. They're even apparently voting Republican. Many of these same people had anti-Sarah-Jackson-Lee stickers slapped on their shirts.

[heights_yankee]

Funny, that's exactly what I thought about all the white non-sportsmen wearing white fishing shirts and toting Anti-Wal-Mart yard signs at White Linen Night was that they looked like Republicans from The Woodlands. And in fact, they are doing very Republican things. They're waging a class war and imposing restrictions upon their neighbors. They're even apparently voting Republican. Many of these same people had anti-Sarah-Jackson-Lee stickers slapped on their shirts.

To be fair, many Democrats dislike SJL in the same way many Republicans dislike Rick Perry.

[RedScare]

The supporters were definately better organized last night. The majority of them were also more rational. The opponents suffer from an angry disposition that doesn't play well in that type of situation. The property rights argument appears to be losing steam because the supporters have a point that they have the right to maintain their investments and what they bought into. My version of property rights may not be your version. It can be argued both ways.

There's also growing realization among the Mcmansion types that no protection could mean that the little bungalow next door gets replaced in favor of density. The Heights has been lucky so far. However, take a little drive down west 15th street between the Blvd. and Shepherd...consider the townhomes being built over at the ole Ashland Tea House site or the condos currently planned for Studewood behind Someburger. Density is knocking on our door. That is the reality and it is probably a much greater threat than having your house burn down.

The count last night was roughly 40/30 in favor of stronger protections. Among the 30 who stated their opposition, four were from one property on Kipling, one was from the Houston Property Rights Association (who said he is actually a renter), one was from the Houston Association of Realtors, two were part of the trio of realtors who have formed the anti-preservation website, one worked for one member of that realtor trio and at least one was a Heights builder.

It seems as if the more the facts get out there, the more people are calming down. CM Lovell indicated at city council this week that a new draft is being compiled. I'll bet it will incorporate a lot of the suggestions that have been made. This is the sausage-making process that always occurs with the crafting of new legislation.

Think about what might happen with no protection and instead of misinformation about paint color, air conditioners and front porch lights, grab a sausage link and take part in the messy process to create a better proposal?

My house has had no protection for 90 f'in years! Guess what? It's still standing and being taken care of by someone who can't stand the thought of people taking away his right to decide what is best for his property. I'll be blunt. I have talked to very few people who know as much about what is historically and architecturally correct about my house that support this ordinance, and I doubt that you or s3mh do, either. These people think that adding 2 story additions to the back of a bungalow is architecturally appropriate. It's not. It looks like sheet! These are the people that want control of my house. This is not about architectural integrity and historic preservation. This is something altogether different. The people most devoted to their homes are all against this ordinance, including me.

Let me make something VERY clear. I have not calmed down. Be careful bringing your propaganda to my door, because I really am that angry.

[TheNiche]

To be fair, many Democrats dislike SJL in the same way many Republicans dislike Rick Perry.

The primaries are over.

[heights]

To be fair, many Democrats dislike SJL in the same way many Republicans dislike Rick Perry.

I can't for the life of me figure out how she keeps getting re-elected. I vote for whomever is running against her. I think I voted for Big Bird one time.

[TheNiche]

I can't for the life of me figure out how she keeps getting re-elected.

black people

[Krol]

My house has had no protection for 90 f'in years! Guess what? It's still standing and being taken care of by someone who can't stand the thought of people taking away his right to decide what is best for his property. I'll be blunt. I have talked to very few people who know as much about what is historically and architecturally correct about my house that support this ordinance, and I doubt that you or s3mh do, either. These people think that adding 2 story additions to the back of a bungalow is architecturally appropriate. It's not. It looks like sheet! These are the people that want control of my house. This is not about architectural integrity and historic preservation. This is something altogether different. The people most devoted to their homes are all against this ordinance, including me.

Let me make something VERY clear. I have not calmed down. Be careful bringing your propaganda to my door, because I really am that angry.

"These people" include me and I also don't like the camel backs. Those are what builders think are easy ways to increase square footage. They are the ones who want to bulldoze your house and mine.

Don't indicate that "all" people devoted to their homes are against this ordinance. I am like you in that I love our house and we take care of it. It is that love of our house that casues me to want to ensure that it is worth more than the land on which it sits. That will not happen unless the demolitions and incompatible construction by speculative builders cease.

We are not focusing on the angry that don't want to discuss anything at all. The attention is on the more reasonable who are willing to work together to hash out disagreements and develop a better ordinance. Not everyone, including me, will be entirely happy with the final product. It is expected that there will also be people, like you, who won't be happy at all about it.

Without stronger protections your 90+ year old house will be worth nothing but the land on which it sits. I have a right to not have that happen to my house. I also have a right to not have huge Mcmansions blocking the sun in the backyard and invading my privacy. Don't tell me your rights are more important than mine. That's not the Houston Heights I know.

[RedScare]

"These people" include me and I also don't like the camel backs. Those are what builders think are easy ways to increase square footage. They are the ones who want to bulldoze your house and mine.

Don't indicate that "all" people devoted to their homes are against this ordinance. I am like you in that I love our house and we take care of it. It is that love of our house that casues me to want to ensure that it is worth more than the land on which it sits. That will not happen unless the demolitions and incompatible construction by speculative builders cease.

We are not focusing on the angry that don't want to discuss anything at all. The attention is on the more reasonable who are willing to work together to hash out disagreements and develop a better ordinance. Not everyone, including me, will be entirely happy with the final product. It is expected that there will also be people, like you, who won't be happy at all about it.

Without stronger protections your 90+ year old house will be worth nothing but the land on which it sits. I have a right to not have that happen to my house. I also have a right to not have huge Mcmansions blocking the sun in the backyard and invading my privacy. Don't tell me your rights are more important than mine. That's not the Houston Heights I know.

Without protections, my 90 year old house has increased in value faster than in the historic districts. Don't make up crap and throw it out here expecting me to buy it. I live here. I know what is going on here. Your propaganda is intended for non-residents who do not know any better. As for your rights, they do NOT extend to restricting mine.

I won't waste my time explaining what the large homes built on my block have done to raise my property value, as you and others are being willfully ignorant on the subject. Besides, demonizing builders, realtors and McMansions is simply subterfuge on your part to justify restricting my property rights. Every time I bring up my right to preserve my property in the manner I feel is best, you go straight to bringing up builders and dozers. Well, it ain't working. I am not a builder or a realtor. That sign in front of my 90 year old house was put there by me!

If the final ordinance only restricts you and your neighbors, I'll be fine with it. If you want to spend the extra time and money dealing with extra reviews by the city, knock yourself out. But leave me out of it. The home values in my hood are where they are for a reason. We don't need your help screwing them up.

*A note about the stinkin' camelbacks. Look at your stupid architectural guide. That BS HAHC actually touts that crap as a way to conform to their restrictions. Don't blame the builders for that sheet. That is YOUR idea of attractive architecture. I have no intention of letting architecturally ignorant slobs obtain control over my house. And that makes you and your fellow supporters the opposition. I will fight every move you make on South Heights.

[TheNiche]

Without stronger protections your 90+ year old house will be worth nothing but the land on which it sits. I have a right to not have that happen to my house. I also have a right to not have huge Mcmansions blocking the sun in the backyard and invading my privacy. Don't tell me your rights are more important than mine. That's not the Houston Heights I know.

First of all, you are absolutely correct that as the owner of your home, you are entitled to the right to its use and modification. Instituting voluntary deed restrictions so that nobody may tear down your house after you have sold it or otherwise moved on is a fairly easy process. These are your property rights.

It is also your right as a citizen of the City of Houston to engage in the political process to try to bring about new ordinances that are desirable to you, even if they may impair other citizens' enjoyment of their property. (The converse is also true! And you should be cautious when empowering a bureaucracy because powers friendly to your interests may not always be there to support you.)

But that's where your natural, human, and political rights stop where this issue is concerned. Unfortunately for your ill-conceived aesthetic imperative, your neighbors have the very same rights and are not acting uniformly in your interests...because it is their codified political right not to have to, and to act in theirs. Your attempt to usurp their rights to their enjoyment of their property in order to promote your own personal concept of aestheticism (which you yourself probably won't like if codified into law) is utterly asinine. I don't think Kant would approve.