Jump to content

Historic Districts in Houston


Recommended Posts

Srsly, what is the avg percent of the population that votes in an election? Using that as a guide, I'd say it was a landslide in favor of removing the designation.

In the 2009 election in which Mayor Parker achieved a runoff, 178,777 of 935,000 registered voters cast a vote. So, after months of campaigning, millions of dollars spent on adds, and untold news articles about the upcoming election, only 19.1% bothered to cast a vote. Mayor Parker received 31% of those votes. So, less than 6% of voters cast ballots for Mayor Parker. In contrast, over 20% cast 'NO' votes in a hastily called and time limited survey in the west district, a better percentage than the City elections.

Makes you go, 'Hmmm'.

More election fun facts:

In the 2009 election, running unopposed, Ed Gonzalez received only 16.28% of the votes of registered voters in District H.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was here before you "preservationists". It is because of people like me that you thought the Heights was worth moving to. If I were to tell you to go f yourself, would you find that offensive? Becau

This is not a bully and name calling situation so much as forcefully pointing out the callousness of your position. You and others claim that your position and this ordinance protects the character a

http://swamplot.com/houstons-historic-districts-will-remain-as-they-are/2011-01-04/ It is over. All districts surveyed failed to muster the 51% needed to opt out. Yes, I know. You all are going

Posted Images

Srsly, what is the avg percent of the population that votes in an election? Using that as a guide, I'd say it was a landslide in favor of removing the designation.

The percentage of the total population over age 18 who voted in the 2008 election, a very high turn-out year, was only 58%. Presidential elections have the highest turnout compared to non-Presidential election year turnout. If you look at voting stats for Harris County, for someone in our area like, say Shelia Jackson Lee, the turn-out of voters in 2010 was slightly less than 37%. Lee won with 70% of the vote with 3 others running against her. Stats in the John Whitmire race were around 38%, only had 1 candidate to run against him and in a Republican year with supposedly high turnout due to voter unrest, and as a Democrat, he won with 60% of the vote. Both local area politicians, both popular, one Congressional, one State. Neither race had total turn out of even 40% of voters. The odd year voter turnout stats for local elections are even worse.

Let's looks at 2009, a non-congressional, odd year election - local stats for races like MAP and Council, in round numbers. Percentage of registered voters voting in the mayoral race - 19%. This is the overall indication of the number of voters, presuming most vote for the mayor and it averaged across the city. Then, starting with the district races, Stardig - 23%, Johnson - 14%, Clutterbuck - 23%, Adams - 19%, Sullivan - 18%, Hoang - 15%, Pennington - 25%, Gonzalez - 16%, Rodriguez - 13%. Notice, the higher voting percentages in the "power-money" districts, of A, C, and G - all over 20%, (Memorial, River Oaks, Southhampton, Tanglewood, etc.) Then take a look at the stats for the At-Large, elected city wide. At-Large 1 - Costello's race - 19%, At-Large 2 - Lovell's race - 19%, At-Large 3 - Noriega - 19%, At-Large 4 - Bradford - 19%, At-Large 5 - Jones - 19%. All city wide elections - 19%, 178,777 ballots cast of the 935,073 registered voters.

In summary, City-Wide turnout in 2009 - 19%. Local race for Council turn out between a low of 13% to a high of 25%. Lowest turnouts for high minority population districts. Middle of the road turn-out, middle class districts. Highest in the upper middle to wealthy districts. Pretty typical stuff. So yes, 20-25% voter turnout for our little vote given all the underhanded tricks employed by Parker and Company is a landslide for anything local. Even if we consider voter turnout compared to even year, non-Presidential elections, we would have prevailed because it was only one side. They were too chicken to show the "support" vote so it was a one-sided vote and we still had better turn-out than the mayor got for her own election. If both sides had voted, and comparing our stats to the 2010 elections for a Representative Lee and Sen. Whitmire, if we had the same turn out they did, a 20-25% vote to repeal the distict, they couldn't have won. At best, they would have had 17 to 18%.

Here is link for the results from the Harris County Clerk's website - didn't make up these numbers. They are the real deal and the fact is we got out the vote better for just one side, than the politicians who are going to vote on this did for their own elections - LOL!

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

s2mh can keep repeating "we won, they lost" but given the numbers for a local election, there does seem to be an explanation for the low turnout. I guess all those who didn't vote for in the 2009 election, MAP's election - and they actually had a real vote, so voters must have been living under a rock to not know they had to vote. We got to vote with a ballot, called a survey, which looked identical to the petition they already signed, conducted in the two weeks before Christmas, followed up with a postcard from the sitting mayor that said don't vote. Indeed, no reasonable explanation for that kind of turnout!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 2009 election in which Mayor Parker achieved a runoff, 178,777 of 935,000 registered voters cast a vote. So, after months of campaigning, millions of dollars spent on adds, and untold news articles about the upcoming election, only 19.1% bothered to cast a vote. Mayor Parker received 31% of those votes. So, less than 6% of voters cast ballots for Mayor Parker. In contrast, over 20% cast 'NO' votes in a hastily called and time limited survey in the west district, a better percentage than the City elections.

Makes you go, 'Hmmm'.

More election fun facts:

In the 2009 election, running unopposed, Ed Gonzalez received only 16.28% of the votes of registered voters in District H.

We must have been on the same wave length this morning. :-)))) I just posted the same, with lots of detail but didn't point out that Parker had less than 6%.

Here is the link again to these stats:

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You get an F for reading comprehension. I said bungalows that are in good condition sell like hotcakes. I also said that bungalows in need of significant repair that are put out to bid in bank owned/foreclosure sales generate lots of interest. Bungalows that need significant renovation that are not put out for bids in as-is/foreclosure/bankowned sales have never sold like hotcakes, even back when builders were out buying them.

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

Bungalow renovations are not rare, they are the norm. I looked at over thirty bungalows when I was looking to buy. Everyone had been renovated. In fact it is rare to find a bungalow in the Heights that hasn't been renovated. And most of the time a bungalow has trouble selling is because of crappy renovations that have killed off the original architecture or make the interior look more like the Wooldands than the 1920s.

and then you say:

I live next to one that would need significant work to restore. I also live next to a rental that would not be as big of a challenge to restore, but would need more than granite countertops to get up to the standards of the Heights.

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am :unsure: of your bad luck, and then I am :rolleyes: at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

and then you say:

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am :unsure: of your bad luck, and then I am :rolleyes: at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Woohoo! S3MH - liar liar pants on fire! Its fun to say :) Its proven and its more than 10 minutes old, so we must forever protect the historical status of SM3H as a liar. I will work on the ordinance, but in the mean time we will need an administrator to go ahead and tag S3MH's future statements with a disclaimer that says "it is an exceedingly high probability that all content in this post is completely untrue, based loosely in the truth, or is a figment of my imagination being asserted as fact"

I read the posts from SM3H, and I have to think that he/she is a she....lots of folks call him a he, but I believe he is a she.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woohoo! S3MH - liar liar pants on fire! Its fun to say :) Its proven and its more than 10 minutes old, so we must forever protect the historical status of SM3H as a liar. I will work on the ordinance, but in the mean time we will need an administrator to go ahead and tag S3MH's future statements with a disclaimer that says "it is an exceedingly high probability that all content in this post is completely untrue, based loosely in the truth, or is a figment of my imagination being asserted as fact"

I read the posts from SM3H, and I have to think that he/she is a she....lots of folks call him a he, but I believe he is a she.

I have tried very hard to refer to s3mh as s3mh and neither he nor she, just because IDK (granted after I saw some others saying he, I fell in line assuming they knew more than me).

Heh, it's so tough online, unless someone says something (or the name gives it away), to tell sometimes. It's much easier in car forums where mostly it's guys, and if it's women (for whatever reason, some sociologist needs to investigate the patterns involved) women are always proud to announce they are women. and then they wonder why men who have underdeveloped maturity end up being extremely forward.

Someone should put a warning label on car forums that says "beware, 90% of the people who post here are mentally underdeveloped when it comes to interacting with women and someone will say something lewd to you within 90 seconds of finding out you are of the opposite sex"

Anyway, that was a way off topic aside, and other than knowing wither to refer to s3mh as he, or she, it matters not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You get an F for lying one way in one post, and then saying something exactly opposite of that in another post.

lets review what you have said:

and then you say:

so out of one side of your mouth, you say that there are few bungalows in the heights that haven't been renovated, yet you happen to live next to two structures that need renovation, more than just granite countertops.

I suppose that this is just an exceedingly rare specific case of 2 of the rare structures in the heights that require work, and that it is just bad luck you are sandwiched between them. at first I am :unsure: of your bad luck, and then I am :rolleyes: at you.

and you wonder why people call you a liar. you can't even be consistent in your lying!

Both the bungalows I live next to have been renovated. One has subsequently been abandonded and will need to start all over again. The other was renovated to make it suitable as a rental and will need to be renovated to be brought up to the typical standard for bungalows.

And I completely stand by the original statement. Few bungalows in the Heights haven't been renovated. Almost all of them have been renovated at some point over the past 90 years. A scant few have all original everything still left in them. The one on Ashland that got renovated and is still on the market was one of those. Original plumbing, plaster walls, etc. I know it takes a little bit of thinking, but it is possible to have a 90 year old bungalow need to be renovated more than once.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of the total population over age 18 who voted in the 2008 election, a very high turn-out year, was only 58%. Presidential elections have the highest turnout compared to non-Presidential election year turnout. If you look at voting stats for Harris County, for someone in our area like, say Shelia Jackson Lee, the turn-out of voters in 2010 was slightly less than 37%. Lee won with 70% of the vote with 3 others running against her. Stats in the John Whitmire race were around 38%, only had 1 candidate to run against him and in a Republican year with supposedly high turnout due to voter unrest, and as a Democrat, he won with 60% of the vote. Both local area politicians, both popular, one Congressional, one State. Neither race had total turn out of even 40% of voters. The odd year voter turnout stats for local elections are even worse.

Let's looks at 2009, a non-congressional, odd year election - local stats for races like MAP and Council, in round numbers. Percentage of registered voters voting in the mayoral race - 19%. This is the overall indication of the number of voters, presuming most vote for the mayor and it averaged across the city. Then, starting with the district races, Stardig - 23%, Johnson - 14%, Clutterbuck - 23%, Adams - 19%, Sullivan - 18%, Hoang - 15%, Pennington - 25%, Gonzalez - 16%, Rodriguez - 13%. Notice, the higher voting percentages in the "power-money" districts, of A, C, and G - all over 20%, (Memorial, River Oaks, Southhampton, Tanglewood, etc.) Then take a look at the stats for the At-Large, elected city wide. At-Large 1 - Costello's race - 19%, At-Large 2 - Lovell's race - 19%, At-Large 3 - Noriega - 19%, At-Large 4 - Bradford - 19%, At-Large 5 - Jones - 19%. All city wide elections - 19%, 178,777 ballots cast of the 935,073 registered voters.

In summary, City-Wide turnout in 2009 - 19%. Local race for Council turn out between a low of 13% to a high of 25%. Lowest turnouts for high minority population districts. Middle of the road turn-out, middle class districts. Highest in the upper middle to wealthy districts. Pretty typical stuff. So yes, 20-25% voter turnout for our little vote given all the underhanded tricks employed by Parker and Company is a landslide for anything local. Even if we consider voter turnout compared to even year, non-Presidential elections, we would have prevailed because it was only one side. They were too chicken to show the "support" vote so it was a one-sided vote and we still had better turn-out than the mayor got for her own election. If both sides had voted, and comparing our stats to the 2010 elections for a Representative Lee and Sen. Whitmire, if we had the same turn out they did, a 20-25% vote to repeal the distict, they couldn't have won. At best, they would have had 17 to 18%.

Here is link for the results from the Harris County Clerk's website - didn't make up these numbers. They are the real deal and the fact is we got out the vote better for just one side, than the politicians who are going to vote on this did for their own elections - LOL!

http://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/110309/Cumulative/cumulative.pdf

s2mh can keep repeating "we won, they lost" but given the numbers for a local election, there does seem to be an explanation for the low turnout. I guess all those who didn't vote for in the 2009 election, MAP's election - and they actually had a real vote, so voters must have been living under a rock to not know they had to vote. We got to vote with a ballot, called a survey, which looked identical to the petition they already signed, conducted in the two weeks before Christmas, followed up with a postcard from the sitting mayor that said don't vote. Indeed, no reasonable explanation for that kind of turnout!

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't over. No matter how many times you post, it still ain't over. No matter how many ways you attempt to make the couple hundred supporters into a majority, it ain't over. So, keep it up,because every time another resident reads your selfish attempts to control their property, we gain another supporter. In case you are wondering, this is the only reason we respond to your made up arguments. You are our best advertisement against the ordinance.

Thanks for your help.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

And your efforts went on for how long before you could manage you lie and cheat your way to getting the designation? YEARS AND YEARS!! We also loved when Sharie baybay said, out loud, at a public hear, that she pestered her neighbors 7 or 8 times to get them to sign. And what the heck is a survey vote?? Either its a survey or its a vote. And my neighbors did think a card was coming that would be their vote. They didn't understand what the survey was by the city. They certainly didn't think the city would call their vote a survey. Why would they? It wasn't what the ordinance said they would receive. So, I guess if you are calling them idiots because they didn't know what it was the city sent them because it wasn't a card, it was a survey (which frankly most people just throw out when they receive them in the mail) and it didn't have a yes or no vote...then I suppose in your little mind, they would be idiots. But I give my neighbors much more credit to know the difference between a card, with which one would vote on and an opinion survey and I give them credit in reading the ordinance to know what to expect. But then again, they aren't omnipotent like you, oh wise one. Your little group is the ones who don't seem to know the difference between a card, with a vote and an opinion survey. And you don't seem to have much reading comprehension either or you would know that the LAW wasn't followed. But of course, we know you know the difference very well and you read the ordinance because your Coalition of Crazy helped draft it. You just couldn't follow the ordinance because it would show you don't have the support you claim you do. So once again, you had to cheat.

And while we are talking about neighbors, your groups whole premise is that your neighbors are idiots so you have to decide what is right for their property because they obviously can't. On the other hand, we know our neighbors are perfectly capable, intelligent folks who don't need you to decide anything for them or their property.

Enjoy your little victory party because it soon will be over and you will have to show actual, real, verifiable support for your position. And you can't or you wouldn't have been afraid to send a real ballot with a yes and no option.

It is far, far from a done deal. Out of curiosity, which of the council members are you calling whiny? The ones who think you should follow the laws of the state and of the city? Funny how they think the law should be followed, eh? It's always something.

No point debating politics with you. You have no idea what you are talking about related to announcing and filing and raising funds. I make it a habit of not discussing politics with folks who are to ignorant to warrant the discussion.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

Just remembered you didn't comment on your best gal pal, Sharie getting tossed from the HAHC. Wonder why? Maybe you ARE the David and Sharie show?!?!?! Would explain why you think you know about real estate, even though clearly they know nothing about real estate. Would also explain why you threatened people who oppose the ordinance and why you think you have the stroke to get our renovations rejected. But the David and Sharie Show has been canceled. There will be no syndication, no re-runs. Its over. The David and Sharie show got the boot from Parker and got slapped up side the head by city attorney David Feldman on their way out as the door was hitting them in the ass. Fired from Keller Williams and fired from the HAHC, both for ethical violations. So, if you are the now defunct David and Sharie Show, in the words of Donald Trump - You're Fired! Sharie was the laughing stock of the HAHC anyway. Some of the most surprising commission members have been blabbing about how ridiculous Sharie's comments were and how they dreaded David's appearance arguing against homeowners over the stupidest, most trivial things. We heard they had a party to celebrate her departure and MAP popped the cork on the champagne because she was rid of the wacko Beales' before anyone filed formal ethics complaints and a true investigation began into their unsavory conduct. :P :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuses, excuses, excusses. This thing has been going on for months. Unless you are willing to call your neighbors idiots (which I think you are), then you would have to admit that every homeowner in the Heights knew about this and knew the survey vote was coming. After all the huffing and puffing, and a lot of realtor and builder cash spent on mailers, websites and meeting, the anti-preservationists didn't come close. You can spin all kinds of fantasy scenarios about the majority of Heights residents leaving for their winter homes on Thanksgiving, or thinking that the survey form was junk mail, or that there is some guy that owns 346 consecutive lots who would have thrown the vote the other way but for the rules, and so on. But the hard facts are that you couldn't get it done. Wake up and smell the coffee. People in the Heights didn't send in their surveys because they are intelligent, understood the issues and made a conscious decision to keep their historic districts with the revised ordinance.

And have you heard who announced they are running for Mayor? So far, no one. In fact, no one is even being talked up as a potential threat to MAP. Whether that is because MAP is popular outside the anti-preservationist and the few whinny council members who don't like a mayor who is more Margaret Thatcher than Bill White, well, that is for you all to worry about.

I'm definitely willing to call at least one of my neighbors an idiot...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the area builders are going to compensate for the historic restriction ordinance by building all around. I was out driving today, winding my way through the hood and saw all the development West of the West District. For fun, I decided to drive South of 11th, then drove up North of 20th. All I can say is WOW! It won't hurt the builders at all to have to build outside these districts. It is definitely time to buy something outside the district before the prices go up more. The areas adjacent are going to be very attractive b/c all the run-down, commercial stuff will eventually be gone and there won't be any HAHC nonsense to deal with. My 1915 unremarkable bungalow with its 1980's renovation can stay frozen in time so people can look back and say "gee, this is what an old home that couldn't be improved past 2010 looked like." I'll be doing the community a favor by increasing the available rental opportunities. There are already 4 rental properties on my block, one a slum lord 4 plex, so one more rental can't hurt, right?

If you want to live in a city regulation free zone, buy West of Ashland, North-East of 20th and Yale, much of Sunset Heights and all of the Woodland Heights outside the soon to be Historic District or Stude 2. It all looks very promising and thanks to Parker and her ill-conceived ordinance, those areas will never be able to acheive historic district status. The balloting process they dreamed up will never acheive a return of a majority, even at 51%, let alone 67%. It is a complete JOKE and everyone knows it. They tried so hard to design a process that prevented the existing districts majority opposing it to undo them, that she screwed every other area. Rocket scientists they aren't!

Sell in historic districts, buy in the HAHC free zone historic neighborhoods!

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

The balloting process they dreamed up will never acheive a return of a majority, even at 51%, let alone 67%.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

I'm not as optimistic.

say for instance there are 20 votes returned for an area that has 50 houses (huge voter turnout).

they are 12 against, 8 for.

landslide victory for preservation of individual rights, right?

the way I understand the ordinance, not so quick. what if 8 of the against votes are on the boundary of the proposed historic district? the way I read the ordinance, they can rewrite the proposed district map to not include those homeowners, toss their votes out (how can they vote to not be in the district, if they aren't in the area to become the district?). rather than doing a re-vote and wasting the taxpayers money with all that, they just recount the ballots received! 4 against, and 8 for? voila!!!! 66.7% support for the HD!!!!! huzah!

that was my understanding of the 'legal and fair' process, I hope to all things holy I am wrong though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by SCDesign
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think samagon has it right. The preservationists will whittle away at the non-historic areas a block at a time. My biggest concern is that 15 peopls will get together and create a new "district" of 150 homes and make a submittal. That sumbittal will immediately put those 150 homes under the rules fo the Historic Ordinace until the "vote" is done. They will use the same approach of "no vote is a yes vote", since they are getting away with it this time, and so effectively the new district will have to get 53% (because 10% is assumed) of people will have to vote against to district. That's not going to happen so the new districts will start popping up everywhere starting very soon. Ans I would hate to own property there during this mess.

I read the ordinance to allow the blocks to be redrawn following a vote, but the 67% is a full 67%, it does not assume the 10% is a given. Each district vote will need 67% of the cards counted to be created when received....if they can get to 67% by cutting out blocks that did not support the ordinance they will...and if that means only one side of a block is protected they will do that too.

The bigger question is if they just continue to use an un-returned card as a vote in favor of the district. That is very dishonest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not as optimistic.

say for instance there are 20 votes returned for an area that has 50 houses (huge voter turnout).

they are 12 against, 8 for.

landslide victory for preservation of individual rights, right?

the way I understand the ordinance, not so quick. what if 8 of the against votes are on the boundary of the proposed historic district? the way I read the ordinance, they can rewrite the proposed district map to not include those homeowners, toss their votes out (how can they vote to not be in the district, if they aren't in the area to become the district?). rather than doing a re-vote and wasting the taxpayers money with all that, they just recount the ballots received! 4 against, and 8 for? voila!!!! 66.7% support for the HD!!!!! huzah!

that was my understanding of the 'legal and fair' process, I hope to all things holy I am wrong though.

The ordinance says 67% of tracts, not of respondents. The HAHC does have the power to modify the boundaries, but even within the modified boundaries, the standard is 67% of tracts. In order to respond, the owner of the tract has to return a card (affixing postage) within 30 days of it being mailed out. Contrast this with the requirements for existing districts in which there was essentially unlimited time to get signatures representing 51% of the area.

Barring some future change to this standard, historic district designations of any significant size will probably be few and far between.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ordinance says 67% of tracts, not of respondents. The HAHC does have the power to modify the boundaries, but even within the modified boundaries, the standard is 67% of tracts. In order to respond, the owner of the tract has to return a card (affixing postage) within 30 days of it being mailed out. Contrast this with the requirements for existing districts in which there was essentially unlimited time to get signatures representing 51% of the area.

Barring some future change to this standard, historic district designations of any significant size will probably be few and far between.

it appears that you are correct, and while my fear was legitimate based on how things have been run up to this point, it was wrong. Here's text from the ordinance (which has been updated to include all of the amendments).

(f) After the deadline for returning cards mailed in accordance with

subsection (e) has passed, the director will determine if owners of 67 percent of all the

tracts in the proposed district support the designation of the district. If so, the application

will be considered final. If the director determines that the owners of less than 67

percent of tracts in the proposed historic district support the designation of the district,

then the director shall either:

(1) Modify the boundaries of the proposed historic district if the modification

will result in boundaries where the owners of 67 percent of the tracts

support designation of the proposed historic district. If the director modifies

the boundaries, the application will be considered final; or

(2) Determine that the application fails and that no further action will be taken

by the HAHC. The director shall mail notice to the owners of all property

within the proposed historic district that the public hearing before the

HAHC has been cancelled.

full text:

http://www.houstontx...ed_20101013.pdf

scroll to Sec. 33-222.1 for relevant info on page 11.

edit:

Thinking about the way it is worded, and reading it again, it says the director 'determines' if 67% of the owners agree with the designation. it doesn't say if 67% of all owners return a yes. the word determines leaves leeway and does not make it necessary for 67% of owners needing to respond with a 'yes'.

Yeah, it may be paranoia, but after seeing the way that the 'vote' happened in December, I am that paranoid, and could easily see a scenario such as I gave above play out.

Edited by samagon
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ordinance says 67% of tracts, not of respondents. The HAHC does have the power to modify the boundaries, but even within the modified boundaries, the standard is 67% of tracts. In order to respond, the owner of the tract has to return a card (affixing postage) within 30 days of it being mailed out. Contrast this with the requirements for existing districts in which there was essentially unlimited time to get signatures representing 51% of the area.

Barring some future change to this standard, historic district designations of any significant size will probably be few and far between.

I am with Samagon here, and I do not think he is being paranoid....look at the past for a prediction of the future...same crooks, same back handed deals....the wording drops respondents....I absolutely read the wording to allow the director to decide whether or not an un-returned card can count as a yes again. With the crooks currently in office, the same process could repeat itself....it makes me want to vomit profusely.

Edited by Marksmu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with Samagon here, and I do not think he is being paranoid....look at the past for a prediction of the future...same crooks, same back handed deals....the wording drops respondents....I absolutely read the wording to allow the director to decide whether or not an un-returned card can count as a yes again. With the crooks currently in office, the same process could repeat itself....it makes me want to vomit profusely.

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support. I mean come on people. This provision is one the realtors and builders wanted. They made it very difficult for further expansion of the districts, if not impossible. But even in the pro-builder/realtor provisions, you all see some secret plot. This is about as bad as the paint/HVAC/political yard sign arguments. Just because you think that it is possible to read an ordinance a certain doesn't mean that it is read that way. Move on. Go get in on the hot property market surrounding the Historic districts. Property prices are going to shoot through the roof as every builder, resident and renovator flees the historic districs and rushes to west of Ashland to build monsterous McVics. But watch out! The decay in the historic districts will be so fast and devastating that the old bungalows will become crack houses and meth labs (granite countertops are a plus for cutting drugs). People moving into the non-historic areas will probably see their property values plummet as soon as they move in due to the crumbling historic districts. Eventually the entire Heights will become a post-apocalyptic war zone where gasoline is currency and gangs of out of work contractors fight for control of the Citgo on W 11th and the Valero on Shepherd.

Or, actually, life will go on. Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon when the economy rebounds and people will pay piles for a bungalow in a Heights Historic District to avoid paying hundreds a month to drive in from The Woodlands.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

s3mh, I have a question for you...

What steps are your preservationist friends taking to have the city adjust the streets within the historic districts to help people recognize them as a HD?

Is the city going to be putting up nice colored street signs that help to designate an area?

Are other steps going to be taken? I love the subway tile street names on the curbs, are they going to go back and add the period style changes to the streets? obviously we can't go back to dirt roads (or can we?!!) but are they going to be putting in some pavers instead of concrete? even though it's my tax dollars being spent, I'd like to see the city have to conform and be minded by the HAHC as well, do you know if this is going to happen?

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support.

First, what the word 'determines' means in the context in which it was used is not obvious. In order to see what the word 'determines' means, we'll just have to see how they act in the first test of the HD to add a new district to the ordinance. that is assuming there is transparency in the process and we can see how they interpreted this part of the ordinance.

second, what I was suggesting they would do is not to consider a ballot not returned as a yes vote, but that if there were lets say a proposed district 50 tracts in size, and of that there were 20 people that mailed an answer back. Still with me? Good, ok, of those 20 votes returned, there were 12 who voted against the proposed district becoming a district. and 8 who voted for. my calculation is that it would be 60% against the proposed addition as a historic district, and 40% for the proposed addition as a historic district. Most people would call it a day and say, wow, great, we're not a HD! BUT, and this is where it gets tricky. The director (as per the ordinance) has the ability to REDRAW the district in whatever way this person sees fit.

So, lets say that the director decides to redraw the district to put 8 of the people who voted AGAINST the district out of the district. What happens to those votes?

I would assume they get tossed, but they don't do a revote, and just take the ballots they have in hand as gospel. so guess what? instead of there being 50 tracts in the proposed HD, there are now 42 homes in the proposed HD. and guess what else, instead of 20 ballots having been returned, now there's only 12 that have been returned, and guess what else? there are now 8 ballots that are FOR the HD, and only 4 that are AGAINST the HD. what does that mean? we now can determine that 67% of the tract owners agree that the proposed district should be a district, because of the 12 people that voted in the proposed district, 67% voted FOR the district!!

that is the way it is written. you can Pollyanna about the HD ordinance all you want tell us about the sunshine and happy rain that will bless the districts, but it doesn't change facts of the way this thing was written. and it doesn't look nice.

I would believe that the process was fair if it were a secret ballot, but it is not, they see where you live, and how you voted, based on that they can move things around till it fits their desires. that is it.

Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon.

this is the most sensible thing I have ever read that you have written.

it makes me wonder if I am wrong about whether gas prices are going to continue to rise.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support. I mean come on people. This provision is one the realtors and builders wanted. They made it very difficult for further expansion of the districts, if not impossible. But even in the pro-builder/realtor provisions, you all see some secret plot. This is about as bad as the paint/HVAC/political yard sign arguments. Just because you think that it is possible to read an ordinance a certain doesn't mean that it is read that way. Move on. Go get in on the hot property market surrounding the Historic districts. Property prices are going to shoot through the roof as every builder, resident and renovator flees the historic districs and rushes to west of Ashland to build monsterous McVics. But watch out! The decay in the historic districts will be so fast and devastating that the old bungalows will become crack houses and meth labs (granite countertops are a plus for cutting drugs). People moving into the non-historic areas will probably see their property values plummet as soon as they move in due to the crumbling historic districts. Eventually the entire Heights will become a post-apocalyptic war zone where gasoline is currency and gangs of out of work contractors fight for control of the Citgo on W 11th and the Valero on Shepherd.

Or, actually, life will go on. Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon when the economy rebounds and people will pay piles for a bungalow in a Heights Historic District to avoid paying hundreds a month to drive in from The Woodlands.

I do not see what exactly is paranoid or "nuts" about believing that the city will use whatever tactics necessary to achieve their goal of larger Historical Districts throughout the Heights. The original survey was obtained fraudulently. People were not allowed to remove their names from a list that they signed years ago and under completely different pretenses and sets of circumstances.

The "re-survey" was done more dishonestly than anything I have ever seen done. Counting a non-returned ballot as a yes, and not allowing owners of contiguous property to have their percent ownership counted the same as everyone else is also dishonest. The resurvey was THE most dishonest, disingenuous, back handed, back room, political process I have ever witnessed. It does not even begin to pass basic tenants of democracy...yet that is how it was done.

The original wording of the ordinance required a positive vote of 67% of respondents....that is it actually required a VOTE. That wording was deliberately dropped.

If you read Sec 33-222.1(e) it reads "The notice shall include a card to be returned by the property owner which shall indicate whether the property owner does or does not support designation of the historic district"

(f) "After the deadline for returning the cards mailed in accordance with subsection (e) has passed, the director will determine if owners of 67 percent of all tracts in the proposed district support the designation of the district"

NOWHERE in that text does it require a returned card to be a yes.....they could very easily, and likely would again use a non-returned card as a yes vote.

All that is required is a card be mailed and that the card have an option for it to be a yes or a no. The method of counting the yes and no is not described. It is DELIBERATELY not described because they want to have the ability to use whatever method they believe will leave them with the highest probability of success.....

I also believe it was written this way to remove the chance that the ordinance as written be used against them in attempts to invalidate the current Historic District designations because they know they could never achieve 67% of the owners to actually vote affirmatively to form the district.

Its not nuts, its not paranoid, its not even a stretch of imagination to conceive....its an unfortunate reality of the world we are now operating in. We have idiots, actual idiots, people with low IQ, in charge of our city, our laws, and now, unfortunately our private property.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not paranoid. It is just nuts. The word "determines" obviously refers to the process of the director counting and verifying the returned ballots, not some super secret special way the director can say that an unreturned ballot means a ballot in support. I mean come on people. This provision is one the realtors and builders wanted. They made it very difficult for further expansion of the districts, if not impossible. But even in the pro-builder/realtor provisions, you all see some secret plot. This is about as bad as the paint/HVAC/political yard sign arguments. Just because you think that it is possible to read an ordinance a certain doesn't mean that it is read that way. Move on. Go get in on the hot property market surrounding the Historic districts. Property prices are going to shoot through the roof as every builder, resident and renovator flees the historic districs and rushes to west of Ashland to build monsterous McVics. But watch out! The decay in the historic districts will be so fast and devastating that the old bungalows will become crack houses and meth labs (granite countertops are a plus for cutting drugs). People moving into the non-historic areas will probably see their property values plummet as soon as they move in due to the crumbling historic districts. Eventually the entire Heights will become a post-apocalyptic war zone where gasoline is currency and gangs of out of work contractors fight for control of the Citgo on W 11th and the Valero on Shepherd.

Or, actually, life will go on. Gas will eventually go to $4.00+ a gallon when the economy rebounds and people will pay piles for a bungalow in a Heights Historic District to avoid paying hundreds a month to drive in from The Woodlands.

Sheesh, what a drama queen! And please cover yourself. Your hypocrisy is showing. Again, your group proves this has NOTHING to do with preservation. It is all about controlling development. You don't like your bungalow being overshadowed with higher priced, 21st century construction which has far wider appeal than your 2/1 bungalow with no insulation or closets, modern conveniences, large enough rooms for 2011 period furnishings, etc. Its a buyers market for those properties that don't have 2011 homebuyer features and its a sellers market for homes that meet the needs of today's families. Period.

The Heights is an historic neighborhood, with or without a riduculous ordinance that stops the organic revitalization of the community. If the Coalition of Crazy was serious about presevation, they would engage in acts of preservation instead of lobbying to give control of development to City Officials. But they aren't true preservationists. Your group engages is fear tactics falsely telling our neighbors that the ordiance will prevent density and yet, lo and behold, it won't. And Gafrick and Parker have both admitted publicly that it won't although Annise didn't have a problem lying about it on her little undue influence postcard she mailed out.

BTW, had a conversation with realtor with a listing for an old but well maintained, unremarkable bungalow that they have multiple solid offers of $275k IF the property is not included in the HD but multiple low ball offers at $225k if it is. So, without even a a quarter of a year atof passage of the "protected" restriction, the property value has dropped $50k. Its a hotcake alright, but at what price? What your obvious lack of expertise in the real estate industry demonstrates is that you don't understand that everything is a hotcake far below market value. Needless to say the seller isn't thrilled about being in an historic district which costs them $50k. Since you and your friends are fond of paying full price or over market, can you please send them an offer above $275k. You can revel in the fact you paid more than market value for a very desirable hot cake bungalow in a Protected Historic District. You will be the envy of all of your friends

Keep repeating "we won, they lost, we won, they lost, we won, they lost." We are busy, very busy.

P.S. The friends I mentioned last week are still waiting for their over market value offer for their well maintained but teeny tiny hot cake bungalow. They check the mail every day but so far, none of your buddies have sent in their contracts. Maybe they are lost in the mail like the ballots the City didn't record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see what exactly is paranoid or "nuts" about believing that the city will use whatever tactics necessary to achieve their goal of larger Historical Districts throughout the Heights. The original survey was obtained fraudulently. People were not allowed to remove their names from a list that they signed years ago and under completely different pretenses and sets of circumstances.

The "re-survey" was done more dishonestly than anything I have ever seen done. Counting a non-returned ballot as a yes, and not allowing owners of contiguous property to have their percent ownership counted the same as everyone else is also dishonest. The resurvey was THE most dishonest, disingenuous, back handed, back room, political process I have ever witnessed. It does not even begin to pass basic tenants of democracy...yet that is how it was done.

The original wording of the ordinance required a positive vote of 67% of respondents....that is it actually required a VOTE. That wording was deliberately dropped.

If you read Sec 33-222.1(e) it reads "The notice shall include a card to be returned by the property owner which shall indicate whether the property owner does or does not support designation of the historic district"

(f) "After the deadline for returning the cards mailed in accordance with subsection (e) has passed, the director will determine if owners of 67 percent of all tracts in the proposed district support the designation of the district"

NOWHERE in that text does it require a returned card to be a yes.....they could very easily, and likely would again use a non-returned card as a yes vote.

All that is required is a card be mailed and that the card have an option for it to be a yes or a no. The method of counting the yes and no is not described. It is DELIBERATELY not described because they want to have the ability to use whatever method they believe will leave them with the highest probability of success.....

I also believe it was written this way to remove the chance that the ordinance as written be used against them in attempts to invalidate the current Historic District designations because they know they could never achieve 67% of the owners to actually vote affirmatively to form the district.

Its not nuts, its not paranoid, its not even a stretch of imagination to conceive....its an unfortunate reality of the world we are now operating in. We have idiots, actual idiots, people with low IQ, in charge of our city, our laws, and now, unfortunately our private property.

Amen, Brothas and Sistas!

But don't be disheartened. They won't get away with these tactics forever. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly but it will soon be out of the hands of the City and into the hands of regulatory officials who won't be bullied by MAP or bought by her promises of counci member district improvements. She won't be able to go to them and ask what they want for their support as her flunies have done with our current city council. And the more they try to lean on council, the more respect she loses.

OTM

ABA

ABE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, what a drama queen! And please cover yourself. Your hypocrisy is showing. Again, your group proves this has NOTHING to do with preservation. It is all about controlling development. You don't like your bungalow being overshadowed with higher priced, 21st century construction which has far wider appeal than your 2/1 bungalow with no insulation or closets, modern conveniences, large enough rooms for 2011 period furnishings, etc. Its a buyers market for those properties that don't have 2011 homebuyer features and its a sellers market for homes that meet the needs of today's families. Period.

The Heights is an historic neighborhood, with or without a riduculous ordinance that stops the organic revitalization of the community. If the Coalition of Crazy was serious about presevation, they would engage in acts of preservation instead of lobbying to give control of development to City Officials. But they aren't true preservationists. Your group engages is fear tactics falsely telling our neighbors that the ordiance will prevent density and yet, lo and behold, it won't. And Gafrick and Parker have both admitted publicly that it won't although Annise didn't have a problem lying about it on her little undue influence postcard she mailed out.

BTW, had a conversation with realtor with a listing for an old but well maintained, unremarkable bungalow that they have multiple solid offers of $275k IF the property is not included in the HD but multiple low ball offers at $225k if it is. So, without even a a quarter of a year atof passage of the "protected" restriction, the property value has dropped $50k. Its a hotcake alright, but at what price? What your obvious lack of expertise in the real estate industry demonstrates is that you don't understand that everything is a hotcake far below market value. Needless to say the seller isn't thrilled about being in an historic district which costs them $50k. Since you and your friends are fond of paying full price or over market, can you please send them an offer above $275k. You can revel in the fact you paid more than market value for a very desirable hot cake bungalow in a Protected Historic District. You will be the envy of all of your friends

Keep repeating "we won, they lost, we won, they lost, we won, they lost." We are busy, very busy.

P.S. The friends I mentioned last week are still waiting for their over market value offer for their well maintained but teeny tiny hot cake bungalow. They check the mail every day but so far, none of your buddies have sent in their contracts. Maybe they are lost in the mail like the ballots the City didn't record.

I made myself clear. If you have a bungalow that has not been updated ("well maintained" is realtor BS for a house that has not been updated in decades), you will no longer be rewarded for your failure to care for your home by having a builder pay you for an inflated lot value. And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune.

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner. People actually do want a yard for their kids and dogs and are willing to give up on sq ft to get that in the Heights. There are millions of acres of land in Houston where you can build a big fat stupid house to fill with big fat puffy couches, enourmous TVs and giant appliances. If people want that, they have got it just about anywhere in Houston. Only in the Heights do we have such a large stock of historic homes. We are going to keep it that way not to control development but to preserve something that exists nowhere else in Houston and can never be replicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made myself clear. If you have a bungalow that has not been updated ("well maintained" is realtor BS for a house that has not been updated in decades), you will no longer be rewarded for your failure to care for your home by having a builder pay you for an inflated lot value. And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune.

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner. People actually do want a yard for their kids and dogs and are willing to give up on sq ft to get that in the Heights. There are millions of acres of land in Houston where you can build a big fat stupid house to fill with big fat puffy couches, enourmous TVs and giant appliances. If people want that, they have got it just about anywhere in Houston. Only in the Heights do we have such a large stock of historic homes. We are going to keep it that way not to control development but to preserve something that exists nowhere else in Houston and can never be replicated.

Your original claims were about homes that were not dilapadated, not homes that have not been updated. You simply twist the facts and your own previous comments when it suits you. However, these folks get it. And I suppose from your way of thinking, the elderly in our neighborhood should just be glad that the historic ordinance has deprived them of $50k because they doubled their investment. We are just going to start calling you the Bernie Madoff of the Heights. These folks should be pleased they didn't lose more of their investment because someone unscrupulous cheated them. Madoff didn't seem to care about taking money from little old ladies either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Ms. Parker,

It appears you had a George W. Bush moment last night. I just got back from viewing video of the FMC meeting of last night. All I can say is "OOOOOPPPPS! Your comments about Houston architecture is terribly and embarrassingly misinformed. Talking about how atomic ranch is only found in Glenbrook Valley or that Greek Revival is not a style found in the original architecture of the Heights made you look really ridiculous. Ms. Parker, the entire loop is surrounded by ranch home JUST LIKE Glenbrook Valley. They are in subdivisions from Timbergrove and Oak Forest to Meyerland and Bellaire. And two story Greek Revival style homes with second story balconies on the front of the home were built in the Heights. Not many were built but they are in the Heights and some are even on the historic register. There is no reason to prevent new construction in that style except that your bungalow bigots don't like them.

Perhaps you need to fire your historic preservation officer and your communications director who continually keep you misinformed. And add, Jonathan Smulian to the list. No more Smulian design guidelines. Please hire a real architect with real knowlege of the home styles of these historic neighborhoods without the bias of someone who has an agenda. The bungalow is just one of many styles in the Heights but Smulian can apparently only identify 1 other. The architectural style of Glenbrook Valley is everywhere in Houston. You can review the styles in these neighborhoods by going to the HAR website. There are examples in the Heights of two story Greek Revivals on the market right now! There are hundreds of 1950-60 ranch homes for sale in many subdivisions. There is plenty of opportunity to educate yourself before you speak in public.

Please, as a fellow Democrat, I am asking that you do not speak about things you know nothing about as it make you appear to be following in the footsteps of Dubya. And take a moment to review those who are giving you all this bad information. They are not serving you well and will likely be your downfall.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I made myself clear. If you have a bungalow that has not been updated ("well maintained" is realtor BS for a house that has not been updated in decades), you will no longer be rewarded for your failure to care for your home by having a builder pay you for an inflated lot value. And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune.

Finally, an admission by the preservationists that the ordinance will cost us money. Thanks for nothing.

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts.

This is, in fact, a lie. Home prices for houses in this price range dropped 6.3% last year. Common sense would dictate that when the pool of available buyers shrinks...such as when one restricts what can be done with the house...prices drop. But, you've never exhibited common sense, and your admission above shows that you actually WANT prices to drop. And, that is why the majority of Heights residents oppose this ordinance. We love our houses, but we are not interested in taking a financial hit over it, especially when the ordinance requires bad architecture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance.

So, we won't be able to get loans to finance improvements and renovations. We will lose money with the ordinance. Well, everyone should want that, right?

Why didn't you put these little ditties in the barrage of flyers you papered your neighbors with? In fact, why didn't you inform them of this little problem when you asked for their signature on the petition to create the district? Why did you tell them their property values would go up in an historic district in every piece of lying propaganda you put out? Why? Because only the truly crazy would want their property values to go down because of an ordinance to preserve 100 year old termite mounds that can't get financing for renovations and expansion. Grandma gets to preserve her home so the Mayor's trolley tour of the Heights can roll by while the tour guide points out that Grandma's house looks just like it did in 2011 and that if you squint real hard, you can imagine how it looked 100 years earlier before she took in the front porch, added a funny lean-to on the side, covered it in vinyl siding, put the aluminum screen door on it and removed the original window screens.

OTM

ABA

ABE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made myself clear. If you have a bungalow that has not been updated ("well maintained" is realtor BS for a house that has not been updated in decades), you will no longer be rewarded for your failure to care for your home by having a builder pay you for an inflated lot value. And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune.

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner. People actually do want a yard for their kids and dogs and are willing to give up on sq ft to get that in the Heights. There are millions of acres of land in Houston where you can build a big fat stupid house to fill with big fat puffy couches, enourmous TVs and giant appliances. If people want that, they have got it just about anywhere in Houston. Only in the Heights do we have such a large stock of historic homes. We are going to keep it that way not to control development but to preserve something that exists nowhere else in Houston and can never be replicated.

I don't know where to begin.

If it is true lenders aren't willing to lend for a house in the heights that will need some work, the reason is not because the money doesn't exist, it is because they don't want to give someone money for a house that has dropped 18%!!!!!! in 6 months, only to be told that more money will need to be put into it.

I mean really 18%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

50 friggin k!!! I don't care how much the house has appreciated since the house was purchased, that is a lot of money to lose in equity. It is, in point of fact, unacceptable for any kind of law.

But at least you get to keep living next door to a poorly renovated rental and a dilapidated house no one lives in.

I've got news for you s3mh, there's TONS of historic homes EVERYWHERE in Houston.

The Heights used to be unique because it has been gentrified and you were not beholden by a HOA to follow their rules. There's not lots of areas that you can walk out at night and see women jogging alone with a dog and feel just as confident that she would make it home safe as she would if she lived up in the woodlands, and you still have as much freedom to do what you want to your home.

Go ahead, name the areas that fit that description. We'll wait.

You know the heights is not in that list any longer. Yeah, it's still safe, but it sure as hell isn't a place that gives an owner freedom. I just hope that this stupid ordinance gets removed before people like you get a chance to move in to my neighborhood and take my freedom away.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't fear rising property values. I am counting on them to help finance an addition.

Back on January 5, you made this statement. Today, you finally admitted the truth.

And, due to lending restraints, you will not get 275k because no one will be able to finance in any needed renovation with a mortgage. Yes, you will lose money compared to no ordinance. But, if you bought the house in the 1990s or 80s, you will still, at least, double your investment. Like I said, I would be happy to have such bad fortune.

Since you only bought here last year, and by your own admission, you paid list price, you won't be getting that renovation loan. Your property value will be lucky if it stagnates. According to HAR, homes in the $250,000 to $500,000 range...which includes most of our bungalows...have dropped 6.3% in the last year.

Guess what. You just yourself. And for what? In the hope that your neighbors won't have a bigger house than you? People like me are resourceful. I get around the law for a living. And I make enough money to pay cash for my renovations. I'll be here long after Parker is gone. My stuff will get done. But you? Sounds like you just voted away the only chance you had to improve your home and its value. No matter how much you crow on this forum, what you have is indeed a hollow victory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where to begin.

If it is true lenders aren't willing to lend for a house in the heights that will need some work, the reason is not because the money doesn't exist, it is because they don't want to give someone money for a house that has dropped 18%!!!!!! in 6 months, only to be told that more money will need to be put into it.

I mean really 18%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

50 friggin k!!! I don't care how much the house has appreciated since the house was purchased, that is a lot of money to lose in equity. It is, in point of fact, unacceptable for any kind of law.

But at least you get to keep living next door to a poorly renovated rental and a dilapidated house no one lives in.

I've got news for you s3mh, there's TONS of historic homes EVERYWHERE in Houston.

The Heights used to be unique because it has been gentrified and you were not beholden by a HOA to follow their rules. There's not lots of areas that you can walk out at night and see women jogging alone with a dog and feel just as confident that she would make it home safe as she would if she lived up in the woodlands, and you still have as much freedom to do what you want to your home.

Go ahead, name the areas that fit that description. We'll wait.

You know the heights is not in that list any longer. Yeah, it's still safe, but it sure as hell isn't a place that gives an owner freedom. I just hope that this stupid ordinance gets removed before people like you get a chance to move in to my neighborhood and take my freedom away.

If folks are really changing their offers by such a large amount due to the ordinance, it does not sound promising. However, based on just one piece of second-hand anecdotal evidence, it's hard to believe someone would be willing to pay a $50k premium not to be beholden by historic rules, and I say that as someone who doesn't agree with the way the ordinance was carried out nor some of the restrictions it puts in place.

$275k sounds high for a demolish and rebuild lot, but it sounds more promising if it's reasonably sized and has a good core for remodeling and adding to, even within the historical guidelines. This has already been going on for years by folks all over the Heights, the only difference right now is the drop in demand and resale due to the market crash, and the aspect of big-brother looking over your shoulder. But now may actually a good time to start buying property, while the prices are still suppressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If folks are really changing their offers by such a large amount due to the ordinance, it does not sound promising. However, based on just one piece of second-hand anecdotal evidence, it's hard to believe someone would be willing to pay a $50k premium not to be beholden by historic rules, and I say that as someone who doesn't agree with the way the ordinance was carried out nor some of the restrictions it puts in place.

$275k sounds high for a demolish and rebuild lot, but it sounds more promising if it's reasonably sized and has a good core for remodeling and adding to, even within the historical guidelines. This has already been going on for years by folks all over the Heights, the only difference right now is the drop in demand and resale due to the market crash, and the aspect of big-brother looking over your shoulder. But now may actually a good time to start buying property, while the prices are still suppressed.

Not second hand info. Seller's agent told me the offer amounts so that indeed would be first hand info. Offers are submitted to the seller's agent first so it doesn't get anymore first hand than that. Its not about paying a premium to not be beholden to an ordinance. It's worth at least $275 as a tear down but not worth that as a renovation. As far as being high priced, an exact same size empty lot two block away got $280k this fall, so not really too high except if it is only a candidate for remodel. The break-even for an addition/remodel is tough for most investors so they have to get a property at fire sale price in order to make it worth their while. From what I understand, with a demo permit, it's worth $275k. Without it, its worth $225k. It has nothing to do with the market crash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick look at HAR does suggest a fairly drastic dropoff in lot prices. In 2008, lots were routinely selling for $260,000 to $275,000. Now, I see them listed for $200,000 to $245,000. The recession can be expected to flatten prices, or even knock them down $10k to $15k, but these are off by $30k to $60k. That's a fairly severe hit we are taking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not second hand info. Seller's agent told me the offer amounts so that indeed would be first hand info. Offers are submitted to the seller's agent first so it doesn't get anymore first hand than that. Its not about paying a premium to not be beholden to an ordinance. It's worth at least $275 as a tear down but not worth that as a renovation. As far as being high priced, an exact same size empty lot two block away got $280k this fall, so not really too high except if it is only a candidate for remodel. The break-even for an addition/remodel is tough for most investors so they have to get a property at fire sale price in order to make it worth their while. From what I understand, with a demo permit, it's worth $275k. Without it, its worth $225k. It has nothing to do with the market crash.

It'll be interesting to see if this occurs on a wide-scale across the new historic districts and if a discrepancy develops compared to non-historic districts. I don't see how the ordinance can survive if evidence continues to mount that it causes a relative and drastic drop in property values. Politically, it seems like the ordinance was badly timed, as now there is the double-whammy of market pressures and the effect of the historic ordinance affecting prices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bungalow has been updated and is in good condition, it will sell fast and may get bid up depending on where the price starts. Not only did my realtor tell me that, but so did one of the realtors that lead the anti-preservation fight. And this was not because people were bidding against builders. Builders had almost completely stopped buying lots with existing liveable bungalows in the Heights for new construction when the market crashed. It was homeowner v. homeowner.

So... why did we need the ordinance again??? To stop the builders.... but you just said... methinks someone is a believer in Fuzzy Logic.

You aren't saving any bungalows, because as you have already said, it will be impossible to get a loan to rebuild a bungalow. You just ensured that all crappy bungalows will remain as... crappy bungalows.

BTW, I'm still waiting on your explanation on how I bought my house (renovated excellent condition) for 30k under appriased value (at time of purchase) after it sat on the market for over 9 months. This is a 250-400k range bungalow. Hotcake!

Heights Homeowner,

I have a 1925 2 story Greek Revival next door to me. The original front porch balcony has been removed and replaced with just a normal roof for the front porch, but it is still very much a Greek Revival home.

I

Edited by SilverJK
Link to post
Share on other sites

So... why did we need the ordinance again??? To stop the builders.... but you just said... methinks someone is a believer in Fuzzy Logic.

You aren't saving any bungalows, because as you have already said, it will be impossible to get a loan to rebuild a bungalow. You just ensured that all crappy bungalows will remain as... crappy bungalows.

BTW, I'm still waiting on your explanation on how I bought my house (renovated excellent condition) for 30k under appriased value (at time of purchase) after it sat on the market for over 9 months. This is a 250-400k range bungalow. Hotcake!

Heights Homeowner,

I have a 1925 2 story Greek Revival next door to me. The original front porch balcony has been removed and replaced with just a normal roof for the front porch, but it is still very much a Greek Revival home.

I

The straw man arguments are really getting very old. I have been very clear and candid, unlike all the BS from anti-preservationists about house paint, HVAC rules, director having the power to unilaterally declare a less than 67% survey to be greater than 67% and so on and so forth. If you own a bungalow that has not been updated in decades and needs tens of thousands in renovation, you will no longer be able to get the same lot value selling price. I never said everyone wins with the ordinance. People who have not kept up their homes over the years will lose. But, they won't lose much because they will still make out like a bandit with all the appreciation that has taken place in the Heights over the last decade and beyond. But between allowing builders to kill of this historic neighborhood and keeping someone who did nothing to improve their home from making $175k of the sale v. $125k, the latter will have to take one for the team.

But that does not mean that bungalows will never again be renovated. That is the strawman argument you have constructed because all the other arguments against the ordinance are all junk (thus a meager 20% returned surveys against in in the Height WD). What I am saying is that prices for bungalows that need significant renovation will need to adjust to the new market. And they eventually will once the realtors get a clue. Once they do, bungalows that need significant work will be priced in a range that will give people enough room to use HUD products that allow construction to bundle with a first lien. And there are still plenty of investors/builders out their who will renovate bungalows. Two teardowns were recently saved and complety renovated near my house. So, the builder fueled bonanza is over. But that doesn't mean that the bungalows in the Heights will all become dilapidated shacks and rentals. That is just another BS scare tactic claim from those who profited mightly from tearing down bungalows and ruining the Heights.

Also, I have NEVER said that bungalows in need of significant renovation sold like hotcakes. Only when they are in foreclosure or bank owned will they attract a fast bid-up sale. Otherwise, it takes a while to find someone who is prepared to do the work. But, it does happen, sooner if the house is priced right, later if the owner holds out for top dollar.

The Heights has enough momentum that the good, smart, quality builders and renovators will do plenty of work in the districts. In fact, the value of bungalows will appreciate even more now that they are protected.

If you don't like bungalows and prefer new construction, then you made a big mistake moving into the Heights. But that is your fault, not mine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for once again putting out the truth that the pool of potential buyers of Heights homes is going to shrink dramatically, and for further pointing out the truth that home prices will drop dramatically. This is what I have said all along, only to be drowned out by preservationists like yourself claiming prices would skyrocket with the ordinance. We always knew it was a lie, and now that the voting is over, you admit it. You also admit that those lucky enough to sell their homes must wait longer to do so. This will cause further depression of Heights home prices.

Your belief that people will spend tens of thousands in renovations knowing that there is little to no return on the investment is incredible. Those who bought in the mid-2000s and who now must sell will suffer a huge loss, as will those who used pre-historic district numbers to justify the renovations. I have to admit that schadenfreude makes me happy that you will be included in those who get hurt by the "new normal" of lower home values, but the hit I am taking outweighs the happiness I feel at your loss.

I would have sold out last summer if my renovations had been complete. Since I have no interest in taking a $40,000 hit I'm staying and plan to make the preservationists' lives miserable. You people should have seen it coming. You don't take money out of peoples' pockets without retribution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The straw man arguments are really getting very old. I have been very clear and candid, unlike all the BS from anti-preservationists about house paint, HVAC rules, director having the power to unilaterally declare a less than 67% survey to be greater than 67% and so on and so forth. If you own a bungalow that has not been updated in decades and needs tens of thousands in renovation, you will no longer be able to get the same lot value selling price. I never said everyone wins with the ordinance. People who have not kept up their homes over the years will lose. But, they won't lose much because they will still make out like a bandit with all the appreciation that has taken place in the Heights over the last decade and beyond. But between allowing builders to kill of this historic neighborhood and keeping someone who did nothing to improve their home from making $175k of the sale v. $125k, the latter will have to take one for the team.

But that does not mean that bungalows will never again be renovated. That is the strawman argument you have constructed because all the other arguments against the ordinance are all junk (thus a meager 20% returned surveys against in in the Height WD). What I am saying is that prices for bungalows that need significant renovation will need to adjust to the new market. And they eventually will once the realtors get a clue. Once they do, bungalows that need significant work will be priced in a range that will give people enough room to use HUD products that allow construction to bundle with a first lien. And there are still plenty of investors/builders out their who will renovate bungalows. Two teardowns were recently saved and complety renovated near my house. So, the builder fueled bonanza is over. But that doesn't mean that the bungalows in the Heights will all become dilapidated shacks and rentals. That is just another BS scare tactic claim from those who profited mightly from tearing down bungalows and ruining the Heights.

Also, I have NEVER said that bungalows in need of significant renovation sold like hotcakes. Only when they are in foreclosure or bank owned will they attract a fast bid-up sale. Otherwise, it takes a while to find someone who is prepared to do the work. But, it does happen, sooner if the house is priced right, later if the owner holds out for top dollar.

The Heights has enough momentum that the good, smart, quality builders and renovators will do plenty of work in the districts. In fact, the value of bungalows will appreciate even more now that they are protected.

If you don't like bungalows and prefer new construction, then you made a big mistake moving into the Heights. But that is your fault, not mine.

I hope you wear chocolate shoes, cause you constantly put your foot in your mouth.

Saying you have been very clear and candid, in the very same response where you say the values of bungalows will go down, and will increase in value is such a blatant display of contradiction I'm dumbfounded.

As far as your last sentence... I obviously like bungalows since I bought one. I could have easily afforded new contruction, but I like the character and feel of bungalow. It is MY OWN PERSONAL choice that I made (well my wife and I made the choice together). I also love the Heights, where it has the ecclectic mix of homes/cultures/etc. I wanted a bungalow, but I generally like the newer construction McVics and McCraftsmens. Just because I like my bungalow, doesn't mean i want to force all of them to be "saved" (or raped with a camelback addition). If it is run down and crappy, i have no problem with it being torn down and replaced with a modern version McVic/McCraftsmen. You have already demonstrated/stated that if it is in good condition then people are willing to pay more than list price, and its Homebuyer vs. Homebuyer instead of developer vs homebuyer.

Your ordinance will really impact those who live (and bought within the last 5 years) in the 200-300k bungalows in a historic district, who are living within their means but aren't super rich. It will be much harder for these people to renovate, now that they will owe more on their houses than they are worth, or at least have much less equity. People like YOU, who bought a house planning on using the appreciation to fund a renovation loan. Way to shoot yourself in your chocolate shoe covered foot.

Edited by SilverJK
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the market for a 2-1 for almost two years. Combined with the experiences of several friends (all young couples) looking for the same thing, I can tell you that over the past four years, 2-1 bungalows that are in good condition in the Heights sell like hotcakes. I paid list, friends bid up by 10-15%, even after the market crashed. Most good ones are gone within a week if priced properly. I did not even get a chance to make an offer on three bungalows because they sold before listing. The realtor just listed for back up offers. I even tried bidding on two as-is foreclosure/bank owned bungalows that needed 50-60k in work (all 2-1's). I bid up by over 20% and lost each time. One time in Woodland Heights to a . . . wait for it . . . young couple who have done a lot of renovation to it. The market is huge for bungalows. People snap them up like hotcakes. Why? Because they are unlike anything else in the City. Anyone can get a townhome, 1970s tract home, McVic, and so on. But the bungalows are unique and historic. And there are plenty of people who appreciate this more than having extra rooms to decorate.

The good news is now people won't have to bid against the wrecking ball and can put money into their homes knowing that they won't end up being reduced to lot value if the neighbors all go to new monster McVics. So, the realtor predicted doom of all the houses rotting away is bull. Now that historic homes are protected, people can put their money into significant renovations without fear of the McVics turning their house into lot value.

Bungalow renovations are not rare, they are the norm. I looked at over thirty bungalows when I was looking to buy. Everyone had been renovated. In fact it is rare to find a bungalow in the Heights that hasn't been renovated. And most of the time a bungalow has trouble selling is because of crappy renovations that have killed off the original architecture or make the interior look more like the Wooldands than the 1920s.

Let's just go back and revisit your comments...

You said bungalows in good condition are hotcakes (and then later added your definition of a good condition). Yet, you say that people can now put their money into significant renovations since the homes are protected. But, by your own definition, a good condition is one that has been updated so why would anyone need to do a significant renovation to a home in good condition. And if they are the norm, and not rare, then the only real market is the renovated bungalow. No one has ever questioned that a fully renovated, double original size or better bungalow wouldn't sell at market value.

The truth is, you are talking out of both sides of your face. You know absolutely nothing about the real estate market in general and you sure don't know anything about it in the Heights. You like to think you do but your statements always contradict themselves and then you make some outrageous claims that it is okay for those with bungalows in need of renovation to lose market value due to the ordinance because it will improve the overall neighborhood.

Anyone reading this with an education beyond 5th grade reads your postings can see that your arguments are continually flawed, just like the reconsideration process but since it was dreamed up by folks just like you, it is easy to understand why it is such a train wreck. Clearly you know as little about logic argument and real estate as you do about preservation. The one thing you do seem to have a good grip on is HISTORIC REGULATION, versus historic preservation. Fortunately, the folks who will ultimately make the decisions have the ability to form logical arguments and understand them and won't be bullied by Parket and Lovell. Those days are numbered just like your victory dancing days are - they too will be short lived and bittersweet for you.

Any by all means, make another posting telling us how much you know about real estate and lending and all the other things you believe you are an expert at. We enjoy the entertainment.

One Term Mayor

Anyone But Annise

Anyone But Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like bungalows and prefer new construction, then you made a big mistake moving into the Heights. But that is your fault, not mine.

Interesting since there is lots of new construction to go around. One can actually like both. They are not mutually exclusive. Like Bill Maher loves to say, I can hold two opposing thoughts at once...but then again, that might be a function of left brain logical thinking.

And just how old are you? Nananana boo booo, it's your fault, not mine. Sheesh, stop embarrassing yourself.

On another topic, did anyone notice the new sign that was put up on the 610 feeder around Oxford that says "Height Historic District"??? Vanna White, I'd like to please buy an "S" for the Heights historic district sign. Wonder how much more money Annise will waste on her pet project because of her screw ups. She can't read an ordinance and follow it that she wrote and now apparently her underlings can't spell "Heights" either. I sure hope the new Mayor will replace those people in January of 2012. Not sure which should go first, the Planning Departments and the Preservation office or their technology - both appear to be quite historic - but of course, we all know anything old and of limited value must be preserved so a trolley can drive by them and imagine days gone by. In this case, the tour director can announce that this is what a historic preservation department looked like in 2011 when Houston had a Mayor so driven to sheer madness by fear of townhomes in her neighborhood that she lost all of her common sense - and the respect of those who voted for her with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't take money out of peoples' pockets without retribution.

I love this quote of yours! - I'm in line right behind you regarding appropriate retribution and am anxious for it to escalate to more that just talk on this website and begin to raise this sunken ship.

Link to post
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...