Jump to content

Historic Districts in Houston


Recommended Posts

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Here's one for you. I live in a historic district (HW), live in a historic bungalow which we renovated 4 years ago (before the stupidity). I even signed the original petition once our work was done, and went back to get a COA after the fact to qualify for the tax break. And I hate what has been done to me and to others who were duped. Heck, they even used our house as an EXAMPLE of what an acceptable addition is in their advertising during the debate. So, S3MH, am I anti-preservation??? Nope, anti-ordinance.

  • 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

Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

I hate to sound like a broken record but remember my admonition that it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? But you can't remember it so I will once have to point out another fine example. Here goes...

When you call someone "extremely ignorant" it is best not to follow it with a word you misspell. Gestapo has one "p" not two. Perhaps you have confused the word Gestapo with Geppetto? After all, they both start with a "G" and mostly have the same letters, right?

Definition of IGNORANT

1a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

2: unaware, uninformed

— ig·no·rant·ly adverb

— ig·no·rant·ness noun

See ignorant defined for English-language learners »

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. ]

no, some of us against the ordinance want to see the city focus on the actual issue of preservation, starting with commercial properties in highly visible districts. Unlike you, I actually know firsthand of what it takes to actually keep a 100 year old frame house standing. It may look nice on the outside, but underneath the granite counter, it's $10s of thousands of a commitment for a 2-1. You and your short-timer urban adventurer friends will leave the Heights for West U or the suburbs soon enough for your latent gated-community dreams, meanwhile I'll still be here, in my old house. My old house that's been pictured in the Chron next to the headline "preserving a piece of history" -- no thanks to you or the ordinance, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one for you. I live in a historic district (HW), live in a historic bungalow which we renovated 4 years ago (before the stupidity). I even signed the original petition once our work was done, and went back to get a COA after the fact to qualify for the tax break. And I hate what has been done to me and to others who were duped. Heck, they even used our house as an EXAMPLE of what an acceptable addition is in their advertising during the debate. So, S3MH, am I anti-preservation??? Nope, anti-ordinance.

Did not mean to neg rep your post....

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, anti-preservation is accurate. This thread alone is full of posts bashing on bungalows as not being deserving of preservation because they are too small for modern families and have no architectural value because they are out of a Sears catalog. Then there are the arguments about diversity of housing being something that is better for the Heights than preserving historic structures. And tons of talk about how new construction in the Heights is the reason the Heights has been successful instead of the work of preservationists. The argument that people who are anti-ordinance are actually pro-preservation is based on the fake argument that deed restrictions are all you need to preserve the historic character of the Heights. That is like saying that regulating emmissions from the ship channel is a bad way to control air pollution in Houston because people who want clean air should just drive less and use fewer petroleum products. And as I have said numerous times, if the people who were against the ordinance were really for preservation, they would have come forward with ways to make a better revised ordinance rather than sending fliers out trying to kill off the historic districts altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing extreme about the ordinance. There is no great imposition on property rights. People are still building in the Heights. People are still selling their homes for a nice profit in the Heights (although there is a bit of a glut of high-end overbuilt houses). People are still rennovating their housing in the Heights. Thus, the anti-preservationists are forced to make outlandish claims about due process and constitutional law, and find themselves in the company of CM Jones and her extremely ignorant Gestappo comment.

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... lets just pretend your right, and all anti-ordinance people hate bungalows and want them all smashed. Preservation isn't limited to houses. I personally have spent a lot of time and money on preserving other artifacts, allowing future generations to enjoy them. Art, writings, furniture, vehicles, photographs, these are just some examples of things i've painstakingly worked to preserve. So even if everything in your post was accurate (which it couldn't be farther from) it still is a gross generalization to call anti-ordinance people anti-preservation.

Maybe you chewed on the window seals of a bungalow as a kid?

Lame, lame, lame. What in the world would let you take the logical leap that my reference to "anti-preservation" was anything other than historic homes in the Houston Heights? You don't refute someone's argument by taking their argument completely out of context and beyond all logical limits in order to manufacture a point. It is plainly obvious that I am taking issue with the blue sign people who claim to be pro-preservation but anti-ordinance. As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread bashing historic preservation in the Heights, I have more than enough evidence to call out the claim that these people are just anti-ordinance. If they had problems with the ordinance, they would have worked with the preservation coalition to craft a better ordinance. But from the get go, it was about trying to kill off the districts and not about inventing a better mouse trap. The anti-preservationists were even given the opportunity to kill of the districts and failed miserably, for the very reason I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, my district is still pending. It has not been approved yet, so your celebration is premature. As for being a bungalow hater, MY bungalow is used in the Historic District staff report as an example of a "contributing structure".

Is YOURS?

Didn't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A little like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas? No one from the hysterical preservationist coalition cares a hoot about preservation. There is NO effort to raise funds to preserve anything. The GHPA, a joke of a preservation organization, TURNS DOWN donated buildings, truly historic ones, because it costs too much to maintain and renovate them. Historic preservation groups all over the country actually SAVE historic structures and raise money to do it. This group is about one thing and one thing only - controlling development. It has NOTHING to do with preserving anything. 99% of them have never lifted a finger beyond regulation and restriction of their neighbors. If you want to restrict development, them work towards that end but to do it under the guise of preservation is hypocritcal and demeans true preservation efforts.

As far as working to get a better ordinance, if it weren't for the efforts of those opposed to the ordinance, the ordinance would have been absolutely dreadful. Even the mayor has said it is better due to some of the problems WE pointed out in the original draft. So, stop lying about that issue. We worked hard to get changes. Just because you weren't privy to the changes we were asking for or that they didn't make it into the final draft doesn't mean that we didn't try. Some of our most important changes were not even considered. Why? Because there was ZERO cooperation on the part of Lovell. Gafrick wasn't much better. Those at city hall have had a certain mindset for years and years and there was no talking to them about any of the details. Clearly, as evidenced by your postings, you again have no expertise about what the reality of the process was. Always the uninformed expert on the forum...

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

Edited by dbigtex56
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

I've made plenty of postings that don't address this dude's lies. But when he makes them, I point out what they are and why. In this one specifically, he claims we made no effort to make the ordinance better. This is patently false. If you read the first draft of the ordinance posted July 19th, you will find there is no exclusion for minor exterior changes (paint, light fixtures, HVAC). I can't provide you the specific section of the ordinance that it pertains to because it wasn't in it. However, the language of the ordinance has not changed which allowed regulation of everything. So, if you read the first you won't find it, if you read the final, you will. The language of the ordinance, Sec. 33-236. Prohibited activities; offense says: "No person shal alter, rehabilitate, restore or construct ANY exgterior feature of any building, structure or object within an historic district without a certificate of appropriateness." In legal terms, ANY means ANY.

That all encompassing language is one of the many things we fought to change. The solution was to exclude the things we specifically mentioned. I am not going to retype the entire ordinace to prove it to you nor am I going to go through each section. One place this exlusion is mentioned is Sec. 33-201. Sec. 33-237. Exemptions (relates SPECIFICALLY the the issues we brought up). Section a) itemizes the exempted maintenance and repairs, and B) addresses the issue of the reconstruction of a non-contributing structure if destroyed by a natural disaster.

Both of those things we fought for - any many more, including the requirement that these restrictions be consented to by a 67% majority. The good news is that 67% SUPPORT is what was included in the final draft for new districts. That was a huge fight we won. The bad news is that in a last ditch switcheroo, the mayor changed 67% support for the existing districts to 51% opposition, thereby allowing a minority to prevail by the flawed process. That is too long to go into but if you want to see city council in action on that and see that they only had 5 minutes to consider it, go to http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ and view the fight over it. It's on October 13th.

I can't normally take this much time to find this stuff for you on every post. Read the ordinance. Then ask specific questions, if you really want to know. Quoting ordinance sections won't be high on my posting priorities though as it is time consuming. Those of us involved from the beginning know the truth, are very well educated on the issue, and regularly call that guy on the lies he tells. But the best thing you can do if you "really want to believe" me is read the ordinance. Read the memos by council members. Watch the council meetings where this issue is discussed. You don't need me to inform you. It is all out there in the public domain if you want more information.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

A lot of people are tired of showing s3mh facts, because s3mh doesn't appear to acknowledge any of it, despite the credibility of the source.

At this point though, it feels like Mark Twain was wrong....

"There's lies, there's damn lies, and there's what s3mh says"

but that is just what it feels like, I'm sure that's not the case.

I'm sure if you asked for specific data of someone as to why s3mh is lying, they would provide that to you.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

Just in case it is the former, and not the latter...

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

Edited by samagon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious - have you made any posts which do not include the words 'lie' 'liar' 'lying' 'lies', etc?

Your point could better be made by quoting chapter and verse of the ordinance, and citing specific examples (quotes) of the inconsistencies - or lies, if you must - of those you accuse.

I really want to believe you.

{edit - double post]

I don't think you really do. We have piles of evidence of the Mayor and Lovell and Gaffrick ramming this ordinance through. We have piles of documents showing the 3 Heights districts were improperly created using city owned property to achieve their "51%". We have dozens of examples that the city can and already has used the ordinance to prevent reasonable renovations to homes. We have evidence that the ordinance has stunted property values, and further, that this is what a core group of "preservationists" want. If you really wanted to believe us, you would. s3mh has never presented a shred of evidence in this or the Walmart thread to support her outlandish and manufactured claims.

Watch the council videos. Show up to the meetings. You will see the charade. I will not post specifics here, since the South Heights district is still pending and I don't want to give away any strategy, but remember that I own a 91 year old bungalow. I signed the original historic district petition long before s3mh ever moved to the Heights. Ask yourself why a bungalow owner who is renovating his home and signed the original petition is now so vehemently against the new ordinance. I am told that my proposed future renovations (most of them, anyway) would actually fit within the new ordinance. Why do you think I am still opposed? If you guessed that the new ordinance is gutting property values so that the money invested in preserving my bungalow will never be recouped, you'd be correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lame, lame, lame. What in the world would let you take the logical leap that my reference to "anti-preservation" was anything other than historic homes in the Houston Heights? You don't refute someone's argument by taking their argument completely out of context and beyond all logical limits in order to manufacture a point. It is plainly obvious that I am taking issue with the blue sign people who claim to be pro-preservation but anti-ordinance. As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread bashing historic preservation in the Heights, I have more than enough evidence to call out the claim that these people are just anti-ordinance. If they had problems with the ordinance, they would have worked with the preservation coalition to craft a better ordinance. But from the get go, it was about trying to kill off the districts and not about inventing a better mouse trap. The anti-preservationists were even given the opportunity to kill of the districts and failed miserably, for the very reason I call them anti-preservationists--it was clear to everyone in the Heights that their goal was NOT preservation.

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word.

We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me.

Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

what in the world would let me take the logical leap... hmmm... maybe the blanketing term of "anti-preservationist". You only prove my point that anti-ordinance is more accurate. I guess you could say "anti-preservation-ordinance" if you just have to use the word.

We did work with the preservation coalition and that is the only reason some specifics were addressed in to the ordinance. But from the get go, your cronies were going to jam this preservation ordinance through with or without a majority of public support (which they have been quoted as saying). That doesn't sound like a group that is willing to work with anyone to me.

Failed miserably... how can you vehemently deny that the card process was anything more than a show. Do you honestly think it would have won a straight vote?

There is absolutely no legitimate argument that can be made in support of the "survey" process for purposes of repeal.

Anyone who says that the "survey" process was legitimate is a liar...period.

Facts:

1. It took supporters of the ordinance YEARS to get to 51% and they cheated by using city owned property to do it.

2. It took opponents less than 30 days to get 10% to agree with them

3. An intentionally confusing "survey" was mailed during the holidays with a very short period of time for return still got nearly 25% in all districts

4. The "survey" was offered only in English, even though there is a substantial spanish speaking population

5. An un-returned survey counted as a vote in favor of the historic district (By far the most egregious insult to democracy I have ever witnessed)

6. Owners of more than 1 contiguous tract, did not get equal voting rights as a percentage of their land ownership.

7. The City used the Mayor and other taxpayer funded employees to fight the taxpayers.

8. No vote was ever taken to determine how many taxpayers actually Supported the districts.

9. No resurvey was ever conducted to determine if the signatures on the original petition still owned the property the city was counting as a vote in their favor.

That is not a legitimate process. It is the most illegitimate process I can even think of.

There is more, and if people can add to the list, I would like to compile as many problems with the survey process as possible....We can just re-post the list in response to the illegitimate arguments of S3MH....He/She will not be able to refute them with facts...only emotional arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made plenty of postings that don't address this dude's lies. But when he makes them, I point out what they are and why. In this one specifically, he claims we made no effort to make the ordinance better. This is patently false. If you read the first draft of the ordinance posted July 19th, you will find there is no exclusion for minor exterior changes (paint, light fixtures, HVAC). I can't provide you the specific section of the ordinance that it pertains to because it wasn't in it. However, the language of the ordinance has not changed which allowed regulation of everything. So, if you read the first you won't find it, if you read the final, you will. The language of the ordinance, Sec. 33-236. Prohibited activities; offense says: "No person shal alter, rehabilitate, restore or construct ANY exgterior feature of any building, structure or object within an historic district without a certificate of appropriateness." In legal terms, ANY means ANY.

That all encompassing language is one of the many things we fought to change. The solution was to exclude the things we specifically mentioned. I am not going to retype the entire ordinace to prove it to you nor am I going to go through each section. One place this exlusion is mentioned is Sec. 33-201. Sec. 33-237. Exemptions (relates SPECIFICALLY the the issues we brought up). Section a) itemizes the exempted maintenance and repairs, and B) addresses the issue of the reconstruction of a non-contributing structure if destroyed by a natural disaster.

Both of those things we fought for - any many more, including the requirement that these restrictions be consented to by a 67% majority. The good news is that 67% SUPPORT is what was included in the final draft for new districts. That was a huge fight we won. The bad news is that in a last ditch switcheroo, the mayor changed 67% support for the existing districts to 51% opposition, thereby allowing a minority to prevail by the flawed process. That is too long to go into but if you want to see city council in action on that and see that they only had 5 minutes to consider it, go to http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ and view the fight over it. It's on October 13th.

I can't normally take this much time to find this stuff for you on every post. Read the ordinance. Then ask specific questions, if you really want to know. Quoting ordinance sections won't be high on my posting priorities though as it is time consuming. Those of us involved from the beginning know the truth, are very well educated on the issue, and regularly call that guy on the lies he tells. But the best thing you can do if you "really want to believe" me is read the ordinance. Read the memos by council members. Watch the council meetings where this issue is discussed. You don't need me to inform you. It is all out there in the public domain if you want more information.

And just curious, do you really want to know truth or are you simply complaining that I regularly point out the lies of this poster who threatened those who oppose his point of view?

I appreciate that you took the time to point out aspects of the ordinance to which you object. No, I have not read the ordinance, and it seems likely that I'd misunderstand it even if I did. I do see your point that the language used in the ordinance grants powers which may be abused. This, among other posts, leads me to believe that it is overreaching and poorly written.

Yes, I'd like to know the truth - truth being a relative term. Not everyone agrees as to what this ordinance truly means, or should mean. If someone's arguments are inconsistent, pointing out these inconsistencies weakens their stance. While I understand your frustration when you believe the truth has been misrepresented, please understand that calling someone a liar isn't a persuasive rebuttal.

I thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

BigTex...

All of Marksmu's points have been proven to be true. They have been discussed by Council. Marlene Gaffrick has admitted that city properties were counted in approving 2 of the 3 Heights districts (We do not even know about the 3rd one yet). The mayor's reply was that it was "too late" to do anything about the mistake, even though Council could simply nullify the result and start over, so that any support is fairly gauged.

Here's the main thing. When all forms of opposition are counted, there is at least 65% opposition to the ordinance. That is, 65% of property owners in each of the districts has actually signed some form of document signifying their opposition to the ordinance. Of the remaining 35%, many of those have never indicated what position they take, meaning that ACTUAL support for the ordinance may well be far less than 35%. So, when s3mh claims Heights residents support this ordinance, remember that what she is saying is that less than a third actually do.

That is the travesty here. They are trying to disguise 65% as the minority.

Edited by RedScare
Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you took the time to point out aspects of the ordinance to which you object. No, I have not read the ordinance, and it seems likely that I'd misunderstand it even if I did. I do see your point that the language used in the ordinance grants powers which may be abused. This, among other posts, leads me to believe that it is overreaching and poorly written.

Yes, I'd like to know the truth - truth being a relative term. Not everyone agrees as to what this ordinance truly means, or should mean. If someone's arguments are inconsistent, pointing out these inconsistencies weakens their stance. While I understand your frustration when you believe the truth has been misrepresented, please understand that calling someone a liar isn't a persuasive rebuttal.

I thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.

Yes, it is both over-reaching and poorly written. And not supported by a majority. Roughly, (depending on how you count the tracts and which district you are referring to) about 40-45% signed directly in opposition. Another 20-25% or more have never signed in favor or against. The remaining third have not been heard from regarding the new ordinance so there can be no real assumption that they still support it. Of course, some do but that number is, from what we can tell from canvassing the neighborhood, is about 20-25%. It is unconscionable to restrict the property rights of everyone else with so little actual support. And unfortunately, the administration thinks that preservation does not require support of the community. We disagree strongly. Good preservation MUST have the support of the community to succeed.

I do think that our neighborhoods would support some reasonable restrictions as long as they were driven by the neighborhood. But for the city to step in, without the support of the community, and decide what those restrictions are, is unacceptable and certainly not democratic. And where people's property rights are concerned, it certainly should be democratic. Look up where property rights are mentioned in both the US and Texas Constitutions. We take them very seriously in our country and in this state. If this were for health, safety or true welfare, as is the case for restrictions about liquor being sold near schools and churches, or adult-related businesses, then those would be understandably dealt with by the city. However, this is an ordinance unequally applied to just some of use. And that is not okay.

I get your point about calling s3 a liar. I truly do. And honestly he/she would not get those kinds of comments had he/she not threatened the other posters on this forum. He doesn't get the respect others do because of his threats, and for that I won't apologize. Reasonable people can agree to reasonably disagree but when you start making threats against your neighbors, you get what you give.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BigTex...

Here's the main thing. When all forms of opposition are counted, there is at least 65% opposition to the ordinance. That is, 65% of property owners in each of the districts has actually signed some form of document signifying their opposition to the ordinance. Of the remaining 35%, many of those have never indicated what position they take, meaning that ACTUAL support for the ordinance may well be far less than 35%. So, when s3mh claims Heights residents support this ordinance, remember that what she is saying is that less than a third actually do.

That is the travesty here. They are trying to disguise 65% as the minority.

No. It is very simple. A majority of the property owners formed a historic district pursuant to a historic ORDINANCE passed by our democratically elected city council. By forming a historic district, residents came under the rules set forth in the historic ORDINANCE. An ORDINANCE can be changed at anytime by a majority vote of city council. City council did just that. They revised the historic ORDINANCE because it failed to accomplish what it was intended to do. The anti-preservationists wanted to have an opportunity to reject the revised ORDINANCE. They were given an unprecedented opportunity to veto the actions of our democratically elected city officials. All they had to do was get a majority to return the surveys. THEY FAILED. Instead of moving on with life, they are now claiming that it is not enough that they had the unprecedented opportunity to veto the actions of city council, they want to effectively rewrite the city charter to require a ratification process of any city action that affects a homeowner's property rights. If at first you don't succeed, change the rules.

Meanwhile, back in reality, HAHC is working just fine. New construction is being approved. Rennovations are getting approved and moving along. The cricisms of the ordinance are all about what it could be in some imaginary world based on hypothetical interpretations that stretch the plain langauge of the ordinance beyond its logical limits. The real motive for opposing the ordinance was never palatable to anyone in the Heights. No one could put up a yard sign that said "Tear down and new construction=double commissions for realtors versus rennovations" and get any support. So, anti-preservationists went about pouring through the ordinance and coming up with a bunch of "what ifs" to try to scare people into joining their cause. But they FAILED. They could not even get half the amount of support they needed to reject the ordinance. And now, they want different rules because they could not win at the rules they were given. If the ordinance was really as bad as they said, people in the Heights would have canned it by way more than 51%. But we aren't dumb. We could easily see through the pretextual arguments and didn't support the repeal campaign. The result is that everything is going to be just fine in the Heights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is both over-reaching and poorly written. And not supported by a majority. Roughly, (depending on how you count the tracts and which district you are referring to) about 40-45% signed directly in opposition. Another 20-25% or more have never signed in favor or against. The remaining third have not been heard from regarding the new ordinance so there can be no real assumption that they still support it. Of course, some do but that number is, from what we can tell from canvassing the neighborhood, is about 20-25%. It is unconscionable to restrict the property rights of everyone else with so little actual support. And unfortunately, the administration thinks that preservation does not require support of the community. We disagree strongly. Good preservation MUST have the support of the community to succeed.

I do think that our neighborhoods would support some reasonable restrictions as long as they were driven by the neighborhood. But for the city to step in, without the support of the community, and decide what those restrictions are, is unacceptable and certainly not democratic. And where people's property rights are concerned, it certainly should be democratic. Look up where property rights are mentioned in both the US and Texas Constitutions. We take them very seriously in our country and in this state. If this were for health, safety or true welfare, as is the case for restrictions about liquor being sold near schools and churches, or adult-related businesses, then those would be understandably dealt with by the city. However, this is an ordinance unequally applied to just some of use. And that is not okay.

I get your point about calling s3 a liar. I truly do. And honestly he/she would not get those kinds of comments had he/she not threatened the other posters on this forum. He doesn't get the respect others do because of his threats, and for that I won't apologize. Reasonable people can agree to reasonably disagree but when you start making threats against your neighbors, you get what you give.

Stick and stones. For every arrow I have shot, twenty have been shot back at me. I can take it. But if you think that you have made a point by calling me out for my tone, then you obviously are not reading all the posts, particularly your own where you rudely referred to me as "chicky". But, I don't mind. It just reminds me that I am right and you are wrong.

As for your venture into constitutional law, it is well settled law that historic preservation is a valid exercise of government's police powers. The only issue is whether the ordinance defeats the reasonable investment backed expectations of property owners. And the government is not the insurer of every property owner's investment. Just because you won't be able to make as much selling to someone who will demolish your bungalow than to someone who will remodel does not mean you have suffered a constitutional taking. Anyone who bought while the ordinance was in effect assumed the risk that the ordinance could be revised to become more restrictive. They will have a very, very difficult time trying to show a taking. And anyone who bought before the ordinance will have seen such an appreciation in their property value that they will still make plenty of money selling.

And as much as you want to deny it, the reality is that the changes to the historic ordinance were 100% driven by the neighborhood. Long before the realtors put up their website, the preservationist had been organizing and meeting with city officials about the failure of the 90 day waiver. Our elected officials agreed with them and revised the ordinance by a vote of 11-3, even after the realtors papered the neighborhood with fliers and dropped blue signs on every vacant lot they could find.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It is very simple. A majority of the property owners formed a historic district pursuant to a historic ORDINANCE passed by our democratically elected city council. By forming a historic district, residents came under the rules set forth in the historic ORDINANCE. An ORDINANCE can be changed at anytime by a majority vote of city council. City council did just that. They revised the historic ORDINANCE because it failed to accomplish what it was intended to do. The anti-preservationists wanted to have an opportunity to reject the revised ORDINANCE. They were given an unprecedented opportunity to veto the actions of our democratically elected city officials. All they had to do was get a majority to return the surveys. THEY FAILED. Instead of moving on with life, they are now claiming that it is not enough that they had the unprecedented opportunity to veto the actions of city council, they want to effectively rewrite the city charter to require a ratification process of any city action that affects a homeowner's property rights. If at first you don't succeed, change the rules.

Meanwhile, back in reality, HAHC is working just fine. New construction is being approved. Rennovations are getting approved and moving along. The cricisms of the ordinance are all about what it could be in some imaginary world based on hypothetical interpretations that stretch the plain langauge of the ordinance beyond its logical limits. The real motive for opposing the ordinance was never palatable to anyone in the Heights. No one could put up a yard sign that said "Tear down and new construction=double commissions for realtors versus rennovations" and get any support. So, anti-preservationists went about pouring through the ordinance and coming up with a bunch of "what ifs" to try to scare people into joining their cause. But they FAILED. They could not even get half the amount of support they needed to reject the ordinance. And now, they want different rules because they could not win at the rules they were given. If the ordinance was really as bad as they said, people in the Heights would have canned it by way more than 51%. But we aren't dumb. We could easily see through the pretextual arguments and didn't support the repeal campaign. The result is that everything is going to be just fine in the Heights.

Aren't you the one that said your side would remember who opposed the ordinance when it came time for HAHC approval?

Just because the HAHC is working "fine" now while under HEAVY review and pressure doesn't mean it will remain that way. Those of us that are here long term, and aren't going to move to some other place and again try to tell everyone how their neighborhood should be, are concerned about the future behavior of the HAHC. All it takes is a few bad apples to cause lots of issues with this process. Your support for this ordinance that it is what the original historic district petitions were for is a blatant fabrication, as are most of your arguments.

Since you refuse to call it anti-ordinance and must use anti-preservation, I will now refer to your group as pro-racism-ordinance.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The anti-preservationists wanted to have an opportunity to reject the revised ORDINANCE.

I think this is the problem.

You cannot grasp the fact that people who are against the ordinance are not anti-preservation.

Why is this such an alien concept?

As for your venture into constitutional law, it is well settled law that historic preservation is a valid exercise of government's police powers. The only issue is whether the ordinance defeats the reasonable investment backed expectations of property owners. And the government is not the insurer of every property owner's investment. Just because you won't be able to make as much selling to someone who will demolish your bungalow than to someone who will remodel does not mean you have suffered a constitutional taking. Anyone who bought while the ordinance was in effect assumed the risk that the ordinance could be revised to become more restrictive. They will have a very, very difficult time trying to show a taking. And anyone who bought before the ordinance will have seen such an appreciation in their property value that they will still make plenty of money selling.

Honestly, because you cannot grasp the concepts referenced above, I find it laughable at best that you are trying to even consider having a serious discussion on constitutional law.

Edited by samagon
Link to post
Share on other sites

And as much as you want to deny it, the reality is that the changes to the historic ordinance were 100% driven by the neighborhood. Long before the realtors put up their website, the preservationist had been organizing and meeting with city officials about the failure of the 90 day waiver. Our elected officials agreed with them and revised the ordinance by a vote of 11-3, even after the realtors papered the neighborhood with fliers and dropped blue signs on every vacant lot they could find.

This is a complete fabrication. The changes to the historic ordinance were NOT driven by the neighborhood. The initial ordinance was driven by the neighborhood, but comparing the original to the new ordinance is at best a joke. Our elected officials did vote for it, and as such have misrepresented their constituents. I guess you point out that blue signs were in front of vacant lots because you don't think the owners of land get to voice an opinion?

Edited by SilverJK
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick and stones. For every arrow I have shot, twenty have been shot back at me. I can take it. But if you think that you have made a point by calling me out for my tone, then you obviously are not reading all the posts, particularly your own where you rudely referred to me as "chicky". But, I don't mind. It just reminds me that I am right and you are wrong.

As for your venture into constitutional law, it is well settled law that historic preservation is a valid exercise of government's police powers. The only issue is whether the ordinance defeats the reasonable investment backed expectations of property owners. And the government is not the insurer of every property owner's investment. Just because you won't be able to make as much selling to someone who will demolish your bungalow than to someone who will remodel does not mean you have suffered a constitutional taking. Anyone who bought while the ordinance was in effect assumed the risk that the ordinance could be revised to become more restrictive. They will have a very, very difficult time trying to show a taking. And anyone who bought before the ordinance will have seen such an appreciation in their property value that they will still make plenty of money selling.

And as much as you want to deny it, the reality is that the changes to the historic ordinance were 100% driven by the neighborhood. Long before the realtors put up their website, the preservationist had been organizing and meeting with city officials about the failure of the 90 day waiver. Our elected officials agreed with them and revised the ordinance by a vote of 11-3, even after the realtors papered the neighborhood with fliers and dropped blue signs on every vacant lot they could find.

It's okay Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling. You can feel safe and secure that no lawsuit about Constitutional law will overturn your historic restrictions on development. And you can feel confident that no one cares if the ordinance decresed the value of granny's house which was always intended to take care of her elder care and she won't miss the $100k she will lose in value. She's just an old lady who won't know the difference anyway, right?

And Chicky, it isn't your tone anyone objects too. Well okay, some people object to it but it was your threats that got me actively posting and pointing out your lies and your hedonist comments. No one has ever said the changes to the ordinance were not 100% driven by the neighborhood. They were 100% driven by a handful of folks who work at the city or are pals with the ones who work at the city. They teamed up with Parker, which we got from day one. Don't think we haven't figured out why one of them is a volunteer in our council member's office. They made the rounds with council and lied to them just like they lied to the public when they got our designation. However, those lies are now being exposed. Once council certifies the results from the flawed process that Parker fooled them with (which they now admit) then phase 2 starts.

For now though, just keep telling yourself it will all be okay. You can still enjoy your sunrise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a complete fabrication. The changes to the historic ordinance were NOT driven by the neighborhood. The initial ordinance was driven by the neighborhood, but comparing the original to the new ordinance is at best a joke. Our elected officials did vote for it, and as such have misrepresented their constituents. I guess you point out that blue signs were in front of vacant lots because you don't think the owners of land get to voice an opinion?

You hit the nail on the head. The original ordinance with the 90 day wait, that required the HAHC to make suggestions, was palatable, because you could still do what you liked to your own property in due time. The city & your neighbors had an opportunity to offer alternatives, and suggestions, and you had the legal right to say nope...and do what you want. That is community driven.

That is how it SHOULD work....and that is where the actual support was! Once the no means no was added and the HAHC has to approve everything, the support became less than 35% of homeowners, and the city knew it. That is precisely why they wont allow a real vote. The change to the ordinance was material, that is why they offered the "unprecedented" option to withdraw.....they just offered the option in a way and a time that they knew with near 100% certainty they would prevail.

Our elected officials have failed us, because they have their pretentious head so far up their anus they cant see anything at all, just like most of the ordinance supporters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You hit the nail on the head. The original ordinance with the 90 day wait, that required the HAHC to make suggestions, was palatable, because you could still do what you liked to your own property in due time. The city & your neighbors had an opportunity to offer alternatives, and suggestions, and you had the legal right to say nope...and do what you want. That is community driven.

That is how it SHOULD work....and that is where the actual support was! Once the no means no was added and the HAHC has to approve everything, the support became less than 35% of homeowners, and the city knew it. That is precisely why they wont allow a real vote. The change to the ordinance was material, that is why they offered the "unprecedented" option to withdraw.....they just offered the option in a way and a time that they knew with near 100% certainty they would prevail.

Our elected officials have failed us, because they have their pretentious head so far up their anus they cant see anything at all, just like most of the ordinance supporters.

And you have hit it too. People were skeptical of even the 90-day waiver, which is why it took so long. They had good cause to be skeptical. In general though, people wanted some attention paid to what was going on in the neighborhood so they thought this sounded like a good idea. Plenty of people refused to sign either knowing intuitively or from experience that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They knew as soon as Parker was elected, they had the muscle to get it done the way they wanted, with or without the support of the community. Parker said as much when she pushed for the moratorium. She was still in her honeymoon on council but if she had to get their support for it today, she would lose. However much you dislike her, she isn't stupid. She knew she had to strong arm council members to get her way and the would only take it so long.

One year into her term, she has eroded the goodwill on council and divided neighbors in once happy, congenial communities. That is all her doing. Folks like s3 have the same "win at all costs" mentality and don't care who they hurt to get their way. They just didn't count on the oppositon in the neighborhoods having enough tenacity to take them on and didn't realize that the mayor would overplay her hand on council. There is a reason 4 council members spoke on condition of anonymity about her adminstration. Former allies and friends think she has gone off the rail and her hold on the few she has left is quickly being broken. She will go down as one of the most reviled and ineffective mayors we've had. Like the HHA and the nutjobs that used to be in power, she will eventually be replaced with a more rationale leader who will straighten out all this crap. With any luck, that will happen November 2011.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For every arrow I have shot, twenty have been shot back at me.

That's because for every one of you and your anti-property-rights friends, there are 20 rational Heights homeowners that believe in responsible preservation without taking away their neighbor's rights.

Edited by heights
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is both over-reaching and poorly written. And not supported by a majority. Roughly, (depending on how you count the tracts and which district you are referring to) about 40-45% signed directly in opposition. Another 20-25% or more have never signed in favor or against. The remaining third have not been heard from regarding the new ordinance so there can be no real assumption that they still support it. Of course, some do but that number is, from what we can tell from canvassing the neighborhood, is about 20-25%. It is unconscionable to restrict the property rights of everyone else with so little actual support. And unfortunately, the administration thinks that preservation does not require support of the community. We disagree strongly. Good preservation MUST have the support of the community to succeed.

I do think that our neighborhoods would support some reasonable restrictions as long as they were driven by the neighborhood. But for the city to step in, without the support of the community, and decide what those restrictions are, is unacceptable and certainly not democratic. And where people's property rights are concerned, it certainly should be democratic. Look up where property rights are mentioned in both the US and Texas Constitutions. We take them very seriously in our country and in this state. If this were for health, safety or true welfare, as is the case for restrictions about liquor being sold near schools and churches, or adult-related businesses, then those would be understandably dealt with by the city. However, this is an ordinance unequally applied to just some of use. And that is not okay.

I get your point about calling s3 a liar. I truly do. And honestly he/she would not get those kinds of comments had he/she not threatened the other posters on this forum. He doesn't get the respect others do because of his threats, and for that I won't apologize. Reasonable people can agree to reasonably disagree but when you start making threats against your neighbors, you get what you give.

I agree that the democratic process, and home owners' rights cannot (or should not) be stampeded by an idealistic government. I find the Supreme Court's Kelo vs City of New London decision especially egregious.

To be consistent, how do businesses which sell liquor or 'adult' related materials not deserve the same protection? Children are already prohibited from frequenting such places, and church goers have no right to demand that whole neighborhoods respect their particular moral values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tempted to agree with you on that, but elected officials have always shown little willingness to stand up to churches. The alcohol prohibition near schools could be justified on the basis that drunk drivers are more plentiful near bars, but the prohibition near churches makes little sense, given that the bars cannot open until noon on Sundays.

The adult establishments? Well, who's going to stick up for them...at least in public?

I am tempted to agree with you on that, but elected officials have always shown little willingness to stand up to churches. The alcohol prohibition near schools could be justified on the basis that drunk drivers are more plentiful near bars, but the prohibition near churches makes little sense, given that the bars cannot open until noon on Sundays.

The adult establishments? Well, who's going to stick up for them...at least in public?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray Hill.

Well, OK.

From Ray's Facebook wall:

"The City Legal Department, however, has not been responsive. I know from conversations I have had with Annise Parker over our long friendship that she too is opposed to censorship but since she has been mayor all of Steve Collin’s four video stores have been closed leaving two dozen *** and lesbian employees out of work and two of Eugene Etherege’s stores have been closed. All accomplished by Houston City Attorney David Feldman and his staff. I have approached him directly about these issues asking only that these cases be handled like all other civil litigation cases before the city. In spite of his promise to do that, it has changed nothing."

This probably deserves a separate thread....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this consistent with the Mayor's belief that the City knows better than the residents what is good for us? Seems to me you should be carrying the banner of those opposed to badly written ordinances enacted with 2/3rds opposition. Or, do you only oppose onerous government when it relates to your pasttimes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this consistent with the Mayor's belief that the City knows better than the residents what is good for us? Seems to me you should be carrying the banner of those opposed to badly written ordinances enacted with 2/3rds opposition. Or, do you only oppose onerous government when it relates to your pasttimes?

OK. I confess. I have been guilty of enjoying historic preservation.

I'm flattered by your interest in my sexual proclivities. They have not recently included 'adult' businesses. I do, however, hope that that option is available, if I should feel the need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I confess. I have been guilty of enjoying historic preservation.

I'm flattered by your interest in my sexual proclivities. They have not recently included 'adult' businesses. I do, however, hope that that option is available, if I should feel the need.

I confess that I, too, am guilty of enjoying...and practicing...historic preservation, though my 91 year old bungalow is hardly historic, merely very old. Surely, you can imagine my frustration at having my well thought out plans to preserve my old house being thwarted by the very people who claim to want to help. Common sense rehabilitation, such as replacing rotten windows and termite infested siding, is only allowed if replaced by even more susceptible new growth pine. Additions to homes are only allowed if they do NOT blend with the original structure. Whereas my agenda is to make my house more efficient, more livable, more attractive and longer lasting, the authors of this ordinance treat these ideals as afterthoughts. They have a draconian view of historic preservation.

As for your proclivities, I couldn't care less. And that includes legislating them. However, since you insist on biting helping hands, I can't say that I'd go out of my way to defend your right to patronize adult establishments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess that I, too, am guilty of enjoying...and practicing...historic preservation, though my 91 year old bungalow is hardly historic, merely very old. Surely, you can imagine my frustration at having my well thought out plans to preserve my old house being thwarted by the very people who claim to want to help. Common sense rehabilitation, such as replacing rotten windows and termite infested siding, is only allowed if replaced by even more susceptible new growth pine. Additions to homes are only allowed if they do NOT blend with the original structure. Whereas my agenda is to make my house more efficient, more livable, more attractive and longer lasting, the authors of this ordinance treat these ideals as afterthoughts. They have a draconian view of historic preservation.

I've already acceded that the ordinance is overreaching and poorly written. If I were to use an example of someone whom the ordinance hurts, I can think of no better example than yours. Can we agree that we agree?

As for your proclivities, I couldn't care less. And that includes legislating them. However, since you insist on biting helping hands, I can't say that I'd go out of my way to defend your right to patronize adult establishments.

Yet, you mentioned my supposed 'pasttimes' [sic]. So far as biting anything, that surely has not been my intention. Please don't abandon the First Amendment on my account.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the democratic process, and home owners' rights cannot (or should not) be stampeded by an idealistic government. I find the Supreme Court's Kelo vs City of New London decision especially egregious.

To be consistent, how do businesses which sell liquor or 'adult' related materials not deserve the same protection? Children are already prohibited from frequenting such places, and church goers have no right to demand that whole neighborhoods respect their particular moral values.

Well, I can't say I would ever get involved in a fight against adult businesses being near churches. And I don't see much "for the public good" for prohibiting liquor sales near them either. As a reformed Catholic, I have zero problems with where ever they sell liquor including next door to a church. But, we come from a fairly puritan sociaety and so I get it. If the majority of people don't want liquor sold near a church or a strip club across the street, okay. Schools on the other hand, I am all for limiting the proximity of both and not because they would attract children but liquor and schools zones don't mix...and depending on the adult establishment, some of those don't belong near schools. It's too hard to distinguish between what would be okay and what wouldnt' so a ban on all is fine with me. I can make the case for the public good...safety, health and welfare. Neither one of them have anything to do with morals for me.

There is nothing really the same about those types of businesses being restricted in their location and what has happened with these historic districts. The law already exists. If a church or a school decides to open their doors near one of those business, they don't have to close. The property owner who buys property within the restricted areas around churches and schools should do their due diligence if they want to operate one of those types of businesses and not buy. In our case, we already owned our property. We did not have these restrictions. Then, because a handful of people want to dictate taste, my property is now restricted on how I can improve it to make sense for my lifestyle of 2011 (like putting a closet in a bedroom). Nothing I would do would hurt my neighbor. Nothing I would do would pose a threat to children. It's just not apples to apples. I am willing to live with some reasonable restrictions for some types of things but not to regulate taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Historic districts see few changes

Chronicle article in todays Saturday paper.

I hope Gonzalez' comments end up on this website!

http://www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com/

He is unbeleivable! He completely ignores the overwhelming opposition in the historic districts in District H. They gave him the evidence last week but then the next day he went on the record and said "we had a process, whether it was flawed or not" and its fine since some of the people want it. The rumor on the street is that there will be direct action against Gonzalez for ignoring the majority of his constituents. He sold out Longoria on the Port Authority appointment and admitted it to a LULAC rep - for the Mayor Pro Tem job. He worked behind the scenes on Walmart until MAP let him off the hook since she had enough other votes. Otherwise, he always votes the way the mayor wants him to. But where is the media on this? How can they let this guy off the hook? Time for Wayne Dolcefino! And its time to get Gonzo out of District H and get someone whose vote can't be bought!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Gonzalez' comments end up on this website!

http://www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com/

He is unbeleivable! He completely ignores the overwhelming opposition in the historic districts in District H. They gave him the evidence last week but then the next day he went on the record and said "we had a process, whether it was flawed or not" and its fine since some of the people want it. The rumor on the street is that there will be direct action against Gonzalez for ignoring the majority of his constituents.

I will actively campaign against Gonzalez in the next election. He has not replied to my email complaints about the Historic District Ordinance. I think he is weak, and a complete wimp. We don't need a weakling representing us in City Council. The mayor has him as her pet. He even introduced Parker at the Sunset Heights centennial in Halbert Park as "my boss." Actually, this embarassed Parker who immediately corrected him on the stage as being independently elected.

Edited by OutfieldDan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will actively campaign against Gonzalez in the next election. He has not replied to my email complaints about the Historic District Ordinance. I think he is weak, and a complete wimp. We don't need a weakling representing us in City Council. The mayor has him as her pet. He even introduced Parker at the Sunset Heights centennial in Halbert Park as "my boss." Actually, this embarassed Parker who immediately corrected him on the stage as being independently elected.

Gonzo thinks that Parker is his boss. He doesn't work for her and she is not his boss but that is exactly how he acts. At least she had enough sense to set the record straight. The term Parker's Puppet fits him well! I just am surprised at his stupidity at calling her his boss. It's very telling.

How long ago was this?

Anyone interested in giving him a piece of your mind, email him at: districth@houstontx.gov. Email his cheif of staff too: Carlos.Doroteo@houstontx.gov

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will actively campaign against Gonzalez in the next election. He has not replied to my email complaints about the Historic District Ordinance. I think he is weak, and a complete wimp. We don't need a weakling representing us in City Council. The mayor has him as her pet. He even introduced Parker at the Sunset Heights centennial in Halbert Park as "my boss." Actually, this embarassed Parker who immediately corrected him on the stage as being independently elected.

Dan, did you do this video? Its hysterical!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, did you do this video? Its hysterical!

Not me! I agree it's hysterical and I hope it makes it around the Internet so we can get rid of Gonzalez.

The date Gonzalez introduced MAP as "my boss" was September 25, 2010. I was at Halbert Park enjoying the Sunset Heights Centennial celebration and I was surprised to see Mayor Parker there. John Ridgway started the stage festivities and introduced Gonzalez. Gonzalez made a short speech and introduced Parker by saying "and now I'd like to introduce my boss, Mayor Annise Parker." Parker took the stage and immediately corrected Gonzalez by saying that she is not his boss, but that Gonzalez is an independently elected councilman.

I personally met Gonzalez a couple of times at a few of the public meetings about historic districts that occurred last fall. I asked him where he was on the issue and all he would say was "I'm very concerned." It's obvious he isn't representing his constituents. He has not sent anything to me by email or mail asking about my position on the issue. His District H email newsletters have avoided the issue completely, as if he purposefully sought to not solicit his district's support or lack thereof for the ordinance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me! I agree it's hysterical and I hope it makes it around the Internet so we can get rid of Gonzalez.

The date Gonzalez introduced MAP as "my boss" was September 25, 2010. I was at Halbert Park enjoying the Sunset Heights Centennial celebration and I was surprised to see Mayor Parker there. John Ridgway started the stage festivities and introduced Gonzalez. Gonzalez made a short speech and introduced Parker by saying "and now I'd like to introduce my boss, Mayor Annise Parker." Parker took the stage and immediately corrected Gonzalez by saying that she is not his boss, but that Gonzalez is an independently elected councilman.

I personally met Gonzalez a couple of times at a few of the public meetings about historic districts that occurred last fall. I asked him where he was on the issue and all he would say was "I'm very concerned." It's obvious he isn't representing his constituents. He has not sent anything to me by email or mail asking about my position on the issue. His District H email newsletters have avoided the issue completely, as if he purposefully sought to not solicit his district's support or lack thereof for the ordinance.

I wonder how many other politicians think the "commander in cheif" in their political structure is their boss? Does Ed Gonzalez think that Rick Perry is the boss of the legislators? Does Ed think that Obama is the boss of the House Representatives and Senators? He needs a government class!!

I sent a message to www.anyonebutedgonzalez.com website asking they put this info on their site. It has to go down as one of the all time stupid things a politician has said publicly.

Hey Ed, ever heard of democracy, or a system of checks and balances? We might have a strong mayoral form of government but you were still elected to represent District H, not the mayor! She isn't your boss!

Unbelievable!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an email I received from Suzy....so nice of her. I responded asking why she didn't bother to respond to my emails during the debate itself, but instead chose to respond now....I copied my response below as well. So damn mad at all of them.

Mr. XXXX,

Thank you for contacting Mayor Parker and Council Members regarding the historic preservation ordinance and the transition process. I can see you feel strongly about this issue; however, what is posted for Council’s consideration on Wednesday is whether or not to accept the reports from Planning regarding the boundaries of the six existing districts.

Sincerely,

Suzy Hartgrove

Public Affairs Manager

Planning & Development Department

AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE:

I take note that you can reply to my letter for this request, but did not bother to respond to my other letter during the debate over the changes to the ordinance. I can’t believe how over-reaching this whole process has been, with total disregard for the wants and desires of the constituents within the districts. I can already envision the cost of the lawsuits that will inevitably occur due to this process.

That being said, thank you for your note.

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, it means that WE WON!

The long version is that City Council voted not to accept the recommendation of Planning to accept the Heights East & West historic districts as they already are. The matter is returned to Planning to look at areas of support and opposition, and submit a new proposal. That proposal could mean dissolve the districts, redraw them, or some other proposal. In reality, the only thing accomplished is that Council said it was not impressed with how this went down. It is a HUGE loss for the Mayor. It is also a big loss for Ed Gonzales, who backed the mayor completely. He is now on the losing side of this measure, and on the wrong side of the 65% of Heights residents opposed to this measure.

The other historic districts, including Norhill, passed. Heights South, Woodland Heights, and Glenbrook Valley have not been voted on, and are still pending districts. A no vote on them would end the historic district question in those neighborhoods.

Final result: Despite being told by the Mayor and s3mh, it was not over. WE WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, it means that WE WON!

The long version is that City Council voted not to accept the recommendation of Planning to accept the Heights East & West historic districts as they already are.

How did the vote break down? I assume Gonzalez was on the Mayor's side?

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...