The Heights Historic Districts

[OutfieldDan]

Yes, that would be my area. We have not modified my home since we moved in almost 7 years ago and it has increased in value almost double what your friends have experienced.

I went out of town for 4 days. We left Thursday and got home last night. In that time, a 3/2 down the street from me (renovated 3 years ago) put a for sale signb up in the yard. Today there was an inspector out there and I just checked HAR and it's "option pending."

There has been no stagnation in this area at all and, again, we already live by "rules" stricter than those everyone is so up in arms about. Not only do homeowners have to answer to the HCAC but they also have to deal with the neighborhood Board, which is sometimes in line with the HCAC and sometimes not. It has caused no slow down, no stagnation, no ghetto. This area is highly desireable and most houses (unless they've been totally jacked and ruined by cheap flips) sell very quickly. As a matter of fact, even the quick flip- some of you may remember the putt putt house on Melwood- sold quickly and the man who bought it has been lovingly making improvements to the home to rememdy some of the subpar work done by the flipper. So, yeah. No ghetto.

Norhill has stagnated. You're in denial. When we were deciding where to move inside the loop, Norhill was much less attractive than the Heights. The Heights benefits from new investment, new people, more diversity, and more going on. The Heights has evolved from it's dilapidated mid-70's character to what it is today with no government intervention. Not so with Norhill - because of too many rules, it's stuck in limbo and consequently it's not as nice. The reason for the stagnation is HAHC and your Board. The main reason for my opinion about the proposed changes is that I don't want to live in a Norhill type neighborhood. I use Norhill as the prime example of the wrong way to go all the time. It's a credible argument.

Edited August 23, 2010 by OutfieldDan

[s3mh]

Norhill has stagnated. You're in denial. When we were deciding where to move inside the loop, Norhill was much less attractive than the Heights. The Heights benefits from new investment, new people, more diversity, and more going on. The Heights has evolved from it's dilapidated mid-70's character to what it is today with no government intervention. Not so with Norhill - because of too many rules, it's stuck in limbo and consequently it's not as nice. The reason for the stagnation is HAHC and your Board. The main reason for my opinion about the proposed changes is that I don't want to live in a Norhill type neighborhood. I use Norhill as the prime example of the wrong way to go all the time. It's a credible argument.

That is odd because the price per sq ft for bungalows in Norhill was pretty much on par with the Heights when I was looking to buy. Norhill has never been the Heights. Norhill is closer to the highway (45), is bordered by crudy Main St. and does not have the same amenities. The housing stock is all small bungalows. There are no larger historic Victorians, Queen Anne, etc. like in the Heights. And lot size is almost uniformly 5000 sq ft. Heights is 6600 and up. Heights has 11th st, 19th st, jogging trail, parks, playgrounds etc. Norhill has a small park and the esplanade. Norhill has actually done quite well considering its disadvantages compared to the Heights.

Edited August 23, 2010 by s3mh

[ISMDAVID]

Yeah, I finally found that report. I doubt the numbers are anywhere close to that today, with the proposed new rules on the table. The number one selling point back in 2007 to get people to sign was the 90 day waiver. They recited it over and over like a mantra. Funny (or not) that now they claim that everyone knew the 90 day waiver was never intended to be permanent.

Is a list of all of the supporting homeowners that signed the list for Heights South available for public record? I would be interested in viewing that approval list but haven't seen such a list online. Is anyone knowledgeable of its location or how I can have access to the list?

[RedScare]

Is a list of all of the supporting homeowners that signed the list for Heights South available for public record? I would be interested in viewing that approval list but haven't seen such a list online. Is anyone knowledgeable of its location or how I can have access to the list?

I'm sure it is available as part of the petition for historic district status. I would contact HAHC and request it under the Freedom of Information Act (you probably have to appear in person to request it). I know that the group organizing the opposition probably has one, since they are collecting the affidavits withdrawing support for the petition for presentation to City Council(over 15% of petition signers have retracted their support, dropping the support well under 51%). There is no legitimate reason for the list to be kept private. Early on, the list was not available, but I'm sure it is by now.

[dbigtex56]

I'm sure it is available as part of the petition for historic district status. I would contact HAHC and request it under the Freedom of Information Act (you probably have to appear in person to request it). I know that the group organizing the opposition probably has one, since they are collecting the affidavits withdrawing support for the petition for presentation to City Council(over 15% of petition signers have retracted their support, dropping the support well under 51%). There is no legitimate reason for the list to be kept private. Early on, the list was not available, but I'm sure it is by now.

Can people withdraw from a petition which has already been submitted? Wouldn't a new petition be necessary?

[RedScare]

Can people withdraw from a petition which has already been submitted? Wouldn't a new petition be necessary?

They can up until the public hearing, which has already been held. So, really, at this point, the retractions are merely to show City Council that support for the new ordinance has severely eroded. Hopefully, they take notice.

[SilverJK]

i didn't buy in Norhill because of the restrictions... this was just one year ago.

Also to the statement of "those buying in the historic districts are in for the long haul". What is your point? Your intention of staying in a location for a longer duration shouldn't give you any more rights than someone who plans to live there for just a few years. I guess your more important than them?

[Marksmu]

So your assertion that is that the demand for 90 year old bungalows, is driven by buyers that actively seeking out houses with adjacent McMansions? And that bungalow buyers would be less likely to purchase a home if the adjacent structure were a restored bungalow?

Maybe this is why Proctor Plaza and Norhill bungalow prices are so low and the neighborhood such a ghetto.

I believe the demand for bungalows in the Heights is driven by the ability to purchase a house that currently meets their needs in terms of size and price, and is also in a nice area. I believe the area has been made nice, not by those people remodeling the bungalows, but by those people who have invested large sums of money in improving the area with new construction. The new construction was a signal to people to buy up the smaller homes as the values are going to increase because of the new construction. The new construction mixed with people improving older homes to be livable is what has driven demand throughout the heights. To think it is just bungalows driving demand is dishonest at best. The value of the bungalow is that it is a home that meets a single professional, or a married couple, either young or old, for the time being. Families, those with kids, are generally seeking out the larger homes and making the larger investments. The drive in property value has been driven by the new construction, and the ability to purchase in an area that is improving.

The ease of selling a bungalow is also not because of its historic nature. It is always easiest to sell the smallest/cheapest home in a nice area, than it is to sell the largest/most expensive home in a nice area. Demand for the cheapest home in the nicest area will always be highest, it is driven by people wanting to say that they "Live in the Heights."

If you take away the new construction, you are left with exactly what Red is saying will happen. Your left with stagnation because the new construction has driven the area for years. The bungalows will always sell....there will always be someone looking for a small home in a nice area, but the fast appreciation days will be over.

I oppose this not only because of the property rights that are being stolen out from under the landowners without any real say, but also because I like money. I like to make my money while I do nothing. Passing the ordinance will mean I will make less money, while at the same time having to answer to a bunch of people who think they know better than I do what I should be able to do with my property.

[JJxvi]

I don't have any stats either. But I've never seen "Next to a McVic" or "New construction next door!" or listed as a feature of a bungalow advertisement on HAR by said realtors. I'd suspect if that was driving the sales of bungalows, it would be touted up more often.

Nearness to new construction is very frequently mentioned in listings. It's probably the most common thing mentioned on the listing of the vast majority of the lower value properties in the neighborhood, suggesting that the realtors at least, think that its probably a significant factor creating demand and driving up the base land values.

[longhorn]

Is there an organized opposition group to the proposed amendment? A website maybe? I have been out of the loop and was not able to attend any of the meetings, but would like more information regarding how to oppose the proposed new historic district/amendment. Thanks.

[RedScare]

Is there an organized opposition group to the proposed amendment? A website maybe? I have been out of the loop and was not able to attend any of the meetings, but would like more information regarding how to oppose the proposed new historic district/amendment. Thanks.

http://responsiblehistoricpreservation.org/

[chester77008]

Is a list of all of the supporting homeowners that signed the list for Heights South available for public record? I would be interested in viewing that approval list but haven't seen such a list online. Is anyone knowledgeable of its location or how I can have access to the list?

If you would like the list of signers in the Heights South district or any other district contact Suzy Hartgrove in the Planning Department. You can send her a written request. I did it, the list, the application, and all signed petitions cost about $70.00. It is an interesting analysis, and they did not have 51% of the vote. The petitions were very stale, many were invalid. They included the City owned esplanades along Heights Blvd, etc. In the end it did not matter, when challenged they simply re-drew the boundaries of the district to make the numbers work, they also knocked on the doors of some of the invalid petitions the night before the hearing to correct properties that had new owners.

It is also interesting to note that about 22% of those who signed in favor of the historic heights south district live in new homes, not just non-contributing but NEW HOMES. Almost 50% if the vote! Those in favor of the new ordinance that want to disallow new home owners a vote are severely misinformed of the facts. What a surprise.

You can also try contacting the opposition website online, I sent the data to them as well, and I am sure they would pass it along. responsiblehistoricpreservation. org.

Edited August 25, 2010 by chester77008

[ISMDAVID]

The petitions were very stale, many were invalid. They included the City owned esplanades along Heights Blvd, etc.

City owned Esplanades counted towards this percentage they needed?

Really?

Really?

Your joking right.

[chester77008]

City owned Esplanades counted towards this percentage they needed?

Really?

Really?

Your joking right.

Not joking...sad to say.

In all fairness to the HAHC, they did remove the city owned property prior to the vote, but only when challenged. The planning department is comfortable with their legal departments opinion that they have precedence to allow them to redraw districts to make the numbers work. To me this affirms the fact that property owners should be given the right to opt in or opt out.

[ISMDAVID]

Not joking...sad to say.

In all fairness to the HAHC, they did remove the city owned property prior to the vote, but only when challenged. The planning department is comfortable with their legal departments opinion that they have precedence to allow them to redraw districts to make the numbers work. To me this affirms the fact that property owners should be given the right to opt in or opt out.

Do you know how the two Boulevard properties owned by the Heights Association were listed ??-

712 Heights Blvd.

1800 Heights Blvd.

Per their website, "At its June 21 meeting, the Board of the Houston Heights Association voted to take no position at this time on the temporary discontinuance or any of the changes that have been informally proposed"

[chester77008]

Do you know how the two Boulevard properties owned by the Heights Association were listed ??-

712 Heights Blvd.

1800 Heights Blvd.

Per their website, "At its June 21 meeting, the Board of the Houston Heights Association voted to take no position at this time on the temporary discontinuance or any of the changes that have been informally proposed"

They were counted as "yes" votes by prior HHA staff. Once again, it is irrelevant, planning can slice those yes votes off if contested, and simply redraw the district. We can play this game for months.

[ISMDAVID]

They were counted as "yes" votes by prior HHA staff. Once again, it is irrelevant, planning can slice those yes votes off if contested, and simply redraw the district. We can play this game for months.

It makes me a little curious, when viewing the odd perimeter outlines that they have sliced and diced, how the street signs that announce the historic district will be applied. For example, the corner of 11th and Arlington where C&D hardware is located? Its boxed out of the district, but I bet they consider putting a sign on that corner.

This whole process of redrawing the districts to fit their agenda is utterly disgusting, ludicrous and seemingly unethical at best.

[RedScare]

This whole process of redrawing the districts to fit their agenda is utterly disgusting, ludicrous and seemingly unethical at best.

In keeping with the entire process over the last 4 years.

[Marksmu]

If you would like the list of signers in the Heights South district or any other district contact Suzy Hartgrove in the Planning Department. You can send her a written request. I did it, the list, the application, and all signed petitions cost about $70.00. It is an interesting analysis, and they did not have 51% of the vote. The petitions were very stale, many were invalid. They included the City owned esplanades along Heights Blvd, etc. In the end it did not matter, when challenged they simply re-drew the boundaries of the district to make the numbers work, they also knocked on the doors of some of the invalid petitions the night before the hearing to correct properties that had new owners.

It is also interesting to note that about 22% of those who signed in favor of the historic heights south district live in new homes, not just non-contributing but NEW HOMES. Almost 50% if the vote! Those in favor of the new ordinance that want to disallow new home owners a vote are severely misinformed of the facts. What a surprise.

You can also try contacting the opposition website online, I sent the data to them as well, and I am sure they would pass it along. responsiblehistoricpreservation. org.

Despite accusations to the contrary from the supporters I am fairly certain that most people are dreadfully misinformed about this ordinance. While I fully intend to fight it, I am becoming disenchanted with many of the people in the Heights...I see signs supporting the ordinance in the yards of new construction and several homes that have additions that would never pass the ordinance standards. I see signs supporting the ordinance in homes that in all likeliness really need to be torn down, and I see signs supporting it in the "eclectic" artistic homes that definitely do not pass the ordinance standards. I cannot understand how someone can support something that by the very wording of the ordinance prevents them from doing exactly what they are currently doing. Its so hypocritical, and nonsensical that the only real answer to the question why, is that they are either dreadfully misinformed about the repercussions and the wording of the ordinance, or they are just hypocritical snobs.

Not surprisingly, almost all of the homes with the tacky little yellow YES signs also have the anti-Walmart sign. It seems to me that the supporters of the ordinance, and the anti-Walmart groups are really more concerned about getting their way, regardless of what the majority of the people want or say. They are hell bent on imposing their beliefs on everyone else, regardless of what those beliefs do to the area. I actually think that they will oppose almost anything that gets built anywhere near the heights that does not fit their narrow minded utopia. They are against Walmart, because they want mom/pop and a walkable neighborhood, yet they oppose the dense construction that is necessary to support a walkable neighborhood. Essentially they oppose everything that does not fit their dream building, whether or not it is a nice home next door, or the building of a store that they dont like.

I have also given quite a bit of thought to the argument that the building of a new home reduces the value of a bungalow to only the lot value. While I don't believe this argument to be true because I believe there will always be a strong market for a small home in a nice area, the real questions is, so what if it does? So long as the value of the property continues to increase, which as long as new construction is allowed it will, who cares where the number falls? If you bought a nice little bungalow for $200,000 to live in because you like nice little bungalows, who cares if the value of the lot when you sell it is $350,000 and the value of the home is $25,000? You still have a property that is worth $375,000. I always thought that people bought a house they like to live in, and that appreciation is a nice secondary bonus.

If you bought the house because you like it, and you intend to live in it, you should not care where the value on the home falls. If you bought the home as investment, and you dont really care whether the home fits your needs, again...who cares where the value falls? If you bought the home as an investment the banning of new construction around you does nothing more than to destroy your investment.

People need to see that they cant have everything their way. If you want to have a walkable neighborhood, you need a more dense population, which means new construction. If you want to have increasing property values, new construction and rehabilitating old construction to modern standards is the way to achieve this. If you want stagnation, and eventually decline, freeze everything as it is now, prevent anything new from happening, dig your heels in deep and oppose everything. Everytime I see a vote yes sign, or a stop the Wal Mart sign, all I see is a stubborn starving donkey with his heels dug in deep refusing to take the last step to the food trough. That donkey because of its stubborn tiny brain, will die 2 steps from food because of its tiny brain and stubborn nature.

[SCDesign]

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.

Edited August 26, 2010 by SCDesign

[Marksmu]

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.

You have every reason to be afraid that whatever back room slimy way they can use to achieve their goal of socializing the heights will be utilized. The way this has been conducted to date is some of the ugliest politics I have ever seen. Its exactly why people stop voting...because slimy politicians can slime their way into giving vocal extreme minorities whatever they want as long as they remain in power.

I dont think you can get 67% of anything to even return a ballot. Those who feel strongly one way or the other will vote, all the others will toss it in the garbage. If the ballot goes out, the opposition needs to be MUCH more organized. We will need to hold public meetings, and distribute many many more signs to let our voice be heard. I really dont think many people have any idea of how negative this can potentially be.

[RedScare]

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.

There is actually some pretty significant concern by a majority of City Council to the way this thing has been carried out. Several councilmembers want a re-vote, and I doubt their concerns would be alleviated if it was stacked in a way to favor either side. Despite Sue Lovell's protests, Houston City Council is still a majority 'no-zoning' group, and the uproar created by opponents of this ordinance have been heard. The question is what result is achieved? What happens to existing districts, what happens to South Heights?

[SCDesign]

There is actually some pretty significant concern by a majority of City Council to the way this thing has been carried out. Several councilmembers want a re-vote, and I doubt their concerns would be alleviated if it was stacked in a way to favor either side. Despite Sue Lovell's protests, Houston City Council is still a majority 'no-zoning' group, and the uproar created by opponents of this ordinance have been heard. The question is what result is achieved? What happens to existing districts, what happens to South Heights?

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.

[Marksmu]

There is actually some pretty significant concern by a majority of City Council to the way this thing has been carried out. Several councilmembers want a re-vote, and I doubt their concerns would be alleviated if it was stacked in a way to favor either side. Despite Sue Lovell's protests, Houston City Council is still a majority 'no-zoning' group, and the uproar created by opponents of this ordinance have been heard. The question is what result is achieved? What happens to existing districts, what happens to South Heights?

I wrote to every single council member and received only one response, which was a canned response in favor of the ordinance. I did get several automated, thanks for writing emails....but I got only one real response, and that one response did not attempt to address the issues I raised, it only said that the issue was being studied.

[RedScare]

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.

True, but 9-6 on what ordinance? It could include a re-vote on Heights East and West. It could include a re-vote on every single existing historic district. It could vote down South Heights and make them start over. Who knows?

[little frau]

I wrote to every single council member and received only one response, which was a canned response in favor of the ordinance. I did get several automated, thanks for writing emails....but I got only one real response, and that one response did not attempt to address the issues I raised, it only said that the issue was being studied.

I wrote to mine, no answer. Waited 2 weeks and sent a follow up. That was over a week ago. Still no answer. I will be calling his office next.

I didn't even get a thanks for writing response.

[dbigtex56]

I wrote to every single council member and received only one response, which was a canned response in favor of the ordinance. I did get several automated, thanks for writing emails....but I got only one real response, and that one response did not attempt to address the issues I raised, it only said that the issue was being studied.

I wrote to mine, no answer. Waited 2 weeks and sent a follow up. That was over a week ago. Still no answer. I will be calling his office next.

I didn't even get a thanks for writing response.

Regardless of a person's views on this matter, how shameful that an elected official should show such disregard for his (or her) constituents.

Names, please?

[AtticaFlinch]

Regardless of a person's views on this matter, how shameful that an elected official should show such disregard for his (or her) constituents.

Names, please?

Welcome to Politics, USA. Would you like a brochure?

[jamesw]

I read the ordinance but I don't understand the distinction between contributing structures and non-contributing, and how the rules would be applied.

Since my house (built by Gomberg 1997) is non contributing, I could tear it down without a CA? What about exterior modifications? To make it even more confusing, I have a garage/guesthouse that is an original structure and I think it IS considered contributing. BUT it has hardi-plank siding, etc. Very confused.

Cheers

James

[Marksmu]

I wrote to every single council member and received only one response, which was a canned response in favor of the ordinance. I did get several automated, thanks for writing emails....but I got only one real response, and that one response did not attempt to address the issues I raised, it only said that the issue was being studied.

The only response I got was this:

Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. I do not take lightly your concerns about how these changes will impact your property and your neighborhood.

I have thoroughly reviewed the ordinance and the proposed amendments and have met with several citizens both for and against the changes. Further, my office has received literally hundreds of emails and letters on the subject. Suffice it to say, the debate on this issue is in full force.

As you know, the City has recently conducted a series of public meetings on the draft proposed ordinance in affected neighborhoods. Also, this Thursday, August 19^th, the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30 pm at the George R. Brown Convention Center , 1001 Avenida de las Americas , General Assembly Hall B, 3^rd Level. I encourage you to attend this meeting if possible – speakers will be able to sign up for public comment to address the committee for one minute.

It is my understanding additional changes are being incorporated into the proposed ordinance to reflect the considerable public input received. I look forward to reviewing these new changes as they are formalized. A new draft will be brought before the Planning Commission and council’s Development and Regulatory Affairs Committee for further review, discussion, public comment and recommendation. I will reserve making a final decision regarding the proposed ordinance until this process runs its course and I have carefully considered all modifications and public comment.

I encourage you to visit http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/hist_pres_amend.html for updates on the progress of this legislation. Again, thank you for weighing in on the future of historic preservation in Houston . I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as city council moves forward in considering this matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Costello

Houston City Council At-Large Position 1