The Heights Historic Districts

[s3mh]

This is something everyone should read before they vote to remain a Historic District.

http://blogs.har.com/774/12909/This-is-not-what-Heights'-residents-signed-up-for-when-they-agreed-to-be-in-a-Historic-District.--Who-can-call-this-progress?ref=nf

Did the homeowner contact the City and tell them that she was under an insurance deadline and needed to get her application in after the deadline? Did the homeowner contact her insurer and ask for an extension of the deadline? Did she contact the City and tell them she was only making repairs? Looks like she had a very good argument that it was just maintenance and should not have been red tagged.

This is another example of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic of the realtors who want to smash every bungalow in the Heights so they can get bigger commissions. Just because one building inspector gets it wrong doesn't mean the entire preservation ordinance should be scrapped.

[poyea]

Did the homeowner contact the City and tell them that she was under an insurance deadline and needed to get her application in after the deadline? Did the homeowner contact her insurer and ask for an extension of the deadline? Did she contact the City and tell them she was only making repairs? Looks like she had a very good argument that it was just maintenance and should not have been red tagged.

This is another example of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic of the realtors who want to smash every bungalow in the Heights so they can get bigger commissions. Just because one building inspector gets it wrong doesn't mean the entire preservation ordinance should be scrapped.

This shouldn't matter....I'm not a realtor or a builder and I live in a historic 1915 bungalow. I even went through the COA process to do an addition. And I was fine with the 90 day rule because ultimately it left me to do what I wanted with MY property. I even signed it. However, this new ordinance completely takes it out of my hands and into the city's hands. And we know how good the city is at running themselves.

Let me change out my siding if I want to without getting into MY business. My house....I paid for it.

And stop saying it is just builders/developers who want to ruin the neighborhood. It is people like me. Nothing else in the game except to keep others/gov't out of my business.

SCRAP THE NEW ORDINANCE!

Edited November 15, 2010 by poyea

[SCDesign]

At all of the meetings I went to I was told that if you didn't need a permit for the work you wouldn't need a CoA. Changing fascia and siding doesn't require a permit so not only are they changing the definition of necessary maintenace but they are also going back on their stated policy of not requiring of CoA on non permitted work. And how long has that taken? A little over a month. How do you think it's going to be when the districts are ironed out?

Also, I know the inspector that wrote this tag and he's as knowledgable and reasonable as any inspectors we have in this city. He's also the main HD inspector. He would only write that tag if he were instructed to by his supervisors, so if he wrote it I'm sure that's policy and not overaealousness..

Edited November 15, 2010 by SCDesign

[ISMDAVID]

I am upset that a future "non vote" on this issue by a property owner counts as a YES vote in the current ordinance. I'm smart enough to know that this must have cleared the city legal department, but it nonetheless concerns me that apathy will lead to the current ordinance not being overturned. With all of the attorneys that put their eyes on these postings, does anyone know if this type of vote has any grounds to be challenged and upheld?

I own two parcels of land adjacent to each other, but they are under one hcad account for tax payment simplification. Does anyone know for certain if I Will get two votes, or one?

Are any Heights residents like myself considering moving away if this ordinance is upheld? I guess that may depend on how this affects their investment.

[samagon]

Did the homeowner contact the City and tell them that she was under an insurance deadline and needed to get her application in after the deadline? Did the homeowner contact her insurer and ask for an extension of the deadline? Did she contact the City and tell them she was only making repairs? Looks like she had a very good argument that it was just maintenance and should not have been red tagged.

This is another example of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic of the realtors who want to smash every bungalow in the Heights so they can get bigger commissions. Just because one building inspector gets it wrong doesn't mean the entire preservation ordinance should be scrapped.

I know it may look like a baby in all that swaddling, but it really is too bad the baby in this case is really a demon possum that will scratch your eyeballs out and do some nasty things to the sockets.

I wish luck to all of those people who are currently in a historic district, I feel for you.

Edited November 16, 2010 by samagon

[RedScare]

I am upset that a future "non vote" on this issue by a property owner counts as a YES vote in the current ordinance. I'm smart enough to know that this must have cleared the city legal department, but it nonetheless concerns me that apathy will lead to the current ordinance not being overturned. With all of the attorneys that put their eyes on these postings, does anyone know if this type of vote has any grounds to be challenged and upheld?

I own two parcels of land adjacent to each other, but they are under one hcad account for tax payment simplification. Does anyone know for certain if I Will get two votes, or one?

Are any Heights residents like myself considering moving away if this ordinance is upheld? I guess that may depend on how this affects their investment.

The "inaction is a vote for the ordinance" tactic is Exhibit Number 1 for how the City and the preservationists will treat us if this ordinance remains in place. If there really was that much support for the ordinance, it would be a straight vote. Instead, Parker, Lovell and the 30 or so hardcore preservationists...some of whom live in new construction...realize that only subterfuge will accomplish their goals.

Today is the deadline for turning in the petitions for a re-vote. However, we are still collecting signatures to show the depth of the opposition to this horribly crafted ordinance. Contact me to sign the petition. This is important to show City Council that the majority do not want this ordinance, despite Ms. Lovell's exercise in authoritarianism.

Disclaimer: I am neither a realtor or a builder, nor a developer. I am simply a resident stuck in the middle of renovations to my 90 year old bungalow, when the rules were changed on me. I've also lived in the Heights longer than a year, unlike some posters to this thread.

[RedScare]

Did the homeowner contact the City and tell them that she was under an insurance deadline and needed to get her application in after the deadline? Did the homeowner contact her insurer and ask for an extension of the deadline? Did she contact the City and tell them she was only making repairs? Looks like she had a very good argument that it was just maintenance and should not have been red tagged.

This is another example of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic of the realtors who want to smash every bungalow in the Heights so they can get bigger commissions. Just because one building inspector gets it wrong doesn't mean the entire preservation ordinance should be scrapped.

Aren't you the poster who claims the City is underhanded and cannot do anything right in another thread about a Walmart? You're sounding a bit two-faced here.

[samagon]

Today is the deadline for turning in the petitions for a re-vote.

how many signatures were collected?

[Marksmu]

Did the homeowner contact the City and tell them that she was under an insurance deadline and needed to get her application in after the deadline? Did the homeowner contact her insurer and ask for an extension of the deadline? Did she contact the City and tell them she was only making repairs? Looks like she had a very good argument that it was just maintenance and should not have been red tagged.

This is another example of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" logic of the realtors who want to smash every bungalow in the Heights so they can get bigger commissions. Just because one building inspector gets it wrong doesn't mean the entire preservation ordinance should be scrapped.

Do you really think you can do ANYTHING quickly with the city??? Are you that naive? Have you ever tried to get permits??? Have you ever dealt with an inspector? I rehabbed an older non-historic house in a newly formed historic district 3 years ago....it was very difficult to navigate the ins/outs of the inspections without having the added layer of Bureaucracy that the HAHC will bring....

The ordinance needs to be thrown out. There is no silver lining here, there is no good part to this ordinance....if the baby is the ordinance, I would take precaution to bulldoze the house the baby is in just to be sure that we kill it before we burn it, and then haul the debris and carcass of this baby to the deepest landfill we can find so that we never see that ugly deformed baby again.

All of your comments on this ordinance are just ridiculous...its all about realtors making more money by just bulldozing entire blocks....Im not a realtor and I hate the ordinance. I have two homes in the heights....one is an investment in a historic district, that was NOT a historic district when I bought it.....My rights and my reasonable expectations of being able to use my property as I please are being stolen from me by a bunch of idiots..actual stupid idiots....and that angers me greatly.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Marksmu

[s3mh]

My rights and my reasonable expectations of being able to use my property as I please are being stolen from me by a bunch of idiots..actual stupid idiots....and that angers me greatly.

Bull. Did you have to through out your tenants? Are you unable to use the property as a residence? Grow up. We live in a complex society with many interrelated rights and responsibilities. We do not live in the wild west. Our community through their elected representatives have decided that the value of preserving historic properties outweighs the ultra-conservative right to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you crap on your neighbor or the community in the process. Yes, government bureaucracies are not fun and easy. But they are that way because there are piles of people out there who think they are better than everyone else and cannot be expected to follow the law. The funny thing is that I know people who live under historic preservation laws in Boston, and they thought this ordinance was a complete joke because it was so incredibly weak. They couldn't believe we were allowed to add a two story addition to a single story bungalow and only had to sumbit very basic documentation for approval and did not have to hire experts to certify the work before submitting for approval.

If you are looking for stupid idiots, look at the people who knock down bungalows and replace them with giant monsters, or the people who do idiotic crappy diy rennovations on bungalows, leaving them looking like a bad version of a KB home from the burbs. They are the ones that made this necessary.

Property rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Historic preservation ordinances have been upheld around the nation (and in Texas) against takings claims. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are a protected property right, not your wildest dreams.

You are now in a historic district. If you don't like it, sell. We won't miss you at all.

[SilverJK]

Bull. Did you have to through out your tenants? Are you unable to use the property as a residence? Grow up. We live in a complex society with many interrelated rights and responsibilities. We do not live in the wild west. Our community through their elected representatives have decided that the value of preserving historic properties outweighs the ultra-conservative right to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you crap on your neighbor or the community in the process. Yes, government bureaucracies are not fun and easy. But they are that way because there are piles of people out there who think they are better than everyone else and cannot be expected to follow the law. The funny thing is that I know people who live under historic preservation laws in Boston, and they thought this ordinance was a complete joke because it was so incredibly weak. They couldn't believe we were allowed to add a two story addition to a single story bungalow and only had to sumbit very basic documentation for approval and did not have to hire experts to certify the work before submitting for approval.

If you are looking for stupid idiots, look at the people who knock down bungalows and replace them with giant monsters, or the people who do idiotic crappy diy rennovations on bungalows, leaving them looking like a bad version of a KB home from the burbs. They are the ones that made this necessary.

Property rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Historic preservation ordinances have been upheld around the nation (and in Texas) against takings claims. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are a protected property right, not your wildest dreams.

You are now in a historic district. If you don't like it, sell. We won't miss you at all.

This is quite possibly the most rediculous post I've ever seen on HAIF. Congrats.

I don't even know where to start.

The fact that you support the ordinance so completely, knowing that it downright infuriates your neighbors is enough for me to know that YOU are bad for the neighborhood.

The ordinance should be thrown out.

And before you start your rant about bulldozing bungalows and conservatives, know that althought not bleeding heart, i'm definitely left of center. I live in a 1925 bungalow in Woodland Heights but outside of the proposed Historic District. My house is very much the same as the original house (although apparently it was once converted to a duplex during WWII then back to a single family home in the 70s). Guess what... I'm NOT going to bulldoze it. Guess what else... I bought the house at pretty much lot value, after it had sat on the market for 9 months. Seems like a prime candidate to doze and rebuild... guess that means that I saved a bungalow... without the ordinance. Go me.

Edited November 16, 2010 by SilverJK

[RedScare]

Our community through their elected representatives have decided that the value of preserving historic properties outweighs the ultra-conservative right to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you crap on your neighbor or the community in the process.

This is a bald-faced lie. There is overwhelming opposition in the community to this ordinance. In my neighborhood, 2/3 of the residents have signed petitions to overturn the ordinance. Let me repeat that for you. TWO THIRDS OF MY NEIGHBORS OPPOSE THE ORDINANCE!

The re-vote process was crafted specifically to find a way around the overwhelming opposition. I don't mind you having a perverted view of property rights, believing that you are entitled to tell me what to do with my property. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What offends me is that a small minority can inflict their views on the overwhelming majority through subterfuge.

Since we are resorting to name-calling, let me state that you, Mayor Parker and Councilwoman Lovell appear un-American in supporting such an undemocratic vote process.

There. I called you a name, too.

[Marksmu]

Bull. Did you have to through out your tenants? Are you unable to use the property as a residence? Grow up. We live in a complex society with many interrelated rights and responsibilities. We do not live in the wild west. Our community through their elected representatives have decided that the value of preserving historic properties outweighs the ultra-conservative right to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you crap on your neighbor or the community in the process. Yes, government bureaucracies are not fun and easy. But they are that way because there are piles of people out there who think they are better than everyone else and cannot be expected to follow the law. The funny thing is that I know people who live under historic preservation laws in Boston, and they thought this ordinance was a complete joke because it was so incredibly weak. They couldn't believe we were allowed to add a two story addition to a single story bungalow and only had to sumbit very basic documentation for approval and did not have to hire experts to certify the work before submitting for approval.

If you are looking for stupid idiots, look at the people who knock down bungalows and replace them with giant monsters, or the people who do idiotic crappy diy rennovations on bungalows, leaving them looking like a bad version of a KB home from the burbs. They are the ones that made this necessary.

Property rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Historic preservation ordinances have been upheld around the nation (and in Texas) against takings claims. It is only the reasonable investment backed expectations that are a protected property right, not your wildest dreams.

You are now in a historic district. If you don't like it, sell. We won't miss you at all.

Did I have to kick out my tenants - no. I did not. But I do not rent the house to make a profit....the rent only covers the payment on the house, the insurance, and $75/month that is set aside to future maintenance. ALL of the profit on this particular house, every single penny of it, will come from the sale of the land to a perspective builder...not from the rent. The lot is large, the house is small, the house is not-historic, and the house is not structurally in the best shape. Its not falling down and it has a nice appearance, but its the type of home (50's, vinyl siding, pre-manufactured home...It replaced a bungalow that burned in the late 40's) that needs to be torn down and a nicer one replace it. The expectations on the sale of this home were in appreciation of the lot...the home is worth less than, insured for, and is appraised for less than $30,000. It is a PRIME candidate for a bulldozer and I, or the next owner WILL eventually bulldoze it and replace it with a new home....ordinance or not. The ordinance can not stop the bulldozing of this home, but it can severely limit a builders profitability when putting up a new one, which greatly reduces the value of the lot upon which this old prefab house sits. The destruction of this house, will increase the value of the lots/homes of everyone on the block....

I have researched and found several cases dealing with historic ordinances, and private property rights...so far I can distinguish the ordinance passed here from every single one of them. This ordinance is not well thought out, and is not reasonable in its scope. Its over-reaching, and can be differentiated from all the others that have passed muster with the courts. Someone, possibly me will challenge this ordinance, and I believe whoever does challenge it has a very good chance of over turning it....It wont cost me much at all to sue the city, and I have enough time to do it...so if it stands, I will. In the mean time, its even better for everyone else if we can just get it removed altogether, so that is the route we are focusing on for the moment....

There are more people like me - who feel the way I feel than there are like you....so once we change it back - feel free to leave....we wont miss you or your type.

[barracuda]

how many signatures were collected?

Folks in my neighborhood have been going street by street, and I believe a majority of the neighbors on my street have signed to overturn the ordinance. I signed it last week because I think the ordinance is over-reaching, and I prefer the deed protections that were agreed upon by a majority of residents in my neighborhood years ago.

I also don't think my house, which I spent a lot of money to renovate, neatly fits the description in the historical context (it was a completely bland and unremarkable house previously, to the point of being ugly, and poorly maintained). And yet, I now regularly receive positive comments from folks walking down the street that they love my house because of the unique features, which would probably have been denied under this ordinance because they don't exactly match the original hideous and cheap architectural features they replaced.

[poyea]

This is quite possibly the most rediculous post I've ever seen on HAIF. Congrats.

I don't even know where to start.

The fact that you support the ordinance so completely, knowing that it downright infuriates your neighbors is enough for me to know that YOU are bad for the neighborhood.

The ordinance should be thrown out.

And before you start your rant about bulldozing bungalows and conservatives, know that althought not bleeding heart, i'm definitely left of center. I live in a 1925 bungalow in Woodland Heights but outside of the proposed Historic District. My house is very much the same as the original house (although apparently it was once converted to a duplex during WWII then back to a single family home in the 70s). Guess what... I'm NOT going to bulldoze it. Guess what else... I bought the house at pretty much lot value, after it had sat on the market for 9 months. Seems like a prime candidate to doze and rebuild... guess that means that I saved a bungalow... without the ordinance. Go me.

Yes, go you! And go me. Not a builder, not a developer. 1915 Bungalow. In Heights West HD (unfortunately). Did an add-on out the back a few years ago. I can't wait for this ordinance to get overturned...I just hope we can make it happen. I hear that HWHD is going to be the most difficult one to overturn (for whatever reason).

Did anyone attend the meeting tonight for the discussion on the ordinance? Curious about what it was all about.

[heights]

We won't miss you at all.

I'll bet you hear that a lot.

[jamesw]

Firstly, the mail-in card process is not to overturn the ordinance - it is to dissolve the historic district you live in. The ordinance is here to stay :-(

Secondly - I was given ONE days notice about the meeting last night at the west end center. I was literally IN THE AIR at the time of the meeting. Did anyone go to "get the facts?"

Cheers

James

[RedScare]

Firstly, the mail-in card process is not to overturn the ordinance - it is to dissolve the historic district you live in. The ordinance is here to stay :-(

Secondly - I was given ONE days notice about the meeting last night at the west end center. I was literally IN THE AIR at the time of the meeting. Did anyone go to "get the facts?"

Cheers

James

I am still trying to find out what this meeting was. Was it the City mandated meeting required once the petition process achieves a re-vote, or some other meeting? Did anyone go?

[Marksmu]

I am still trying to find out what this meeting was. Was it the City mandated meeting required once the petition process achieves a re-vote, or some other meeting? Did anyone go?

I never heard a word about this meeting, and I have even been scanning that freebie paper "The Leader" they litter my yard with watching to see if they try to sneak something past us by using that thing.

[RedScare]

My next door neighbor attended the meeting. Apparently, it was put on by the preservationists, or the City of Houston Planning Department. It was a Q&A about the ordinance. Surprisingly, according to my neighbor, they were fairly neutral, especially compared to the other meetings we attended in the summer. Several questions that were asked regarding whether minor alterations would require rather major remediation to comply with the wording of the ordinance were answered, "yes, you will have to do all that".

One issue that I have received conflicting answers on is regarding "remuddling", or remodels that put the wrong architectural elements on a house. A prime example (and a pet peeve of mine) is putting colonial columns on a craftsman house. Craftsman homes generally have tapered square columns. My understanding is that the ordinance will not allow you to replace those columns if they are already on the house. My neighbor said that they WANT you to go back to the original columns. However, it is still unclear whether the wording of the ordinance states that. It is also unclear how the HAHC will act.

[Marksmu]

My next door neighbor attended the meeting. Apparently, it was put on by the preservationists, or the City of Houston Planning Department. It was a Q&A about the ordinance. Surprisingly, according to my neighbor, they were fairly neutral, especially compared to the other meetings we attended in the summer. Several questions that were asked regarding whether minor alterations would require rather major remediation to comply with the wording of the ordinance were answered, "yes, you will have to do all that".

One issue that I have received conflicting answers on is regarding "remuddling", or remodels that put the wrong architectural elements on a house. A prime example (and a pet peeve of mine) is putting colonial columns on a craftsman house. Craftsman homes generally have tapered square columns. My understanding is that the ordinance will not allow you to replace those columns if they are already on the house. My neighbor said that they WANT you to go back to the original columns. However, it is still unclear whether the wording of the ordinance states that. It is also unclear how the HAHC will act.

Swamp lot is showing today that all of the new historic districts in the heights have met the 10% threshold for a new vote. I really hope that people go out there and get the word out to get the card mailed in!!!! Getting past the apathy and ensuring the cards are mailed to the correct address is going to be very difficult - especially with the multitude of absentee owners.

[Flashman]

No, it is showing that 8 of the 16 have reached the threshold.

Wishing don't make it so:

http://swamplot.com/8-out-of-16-houston-historic-districts-are-now-up-for-reconsideration/2010-11-18/

[RedScare]

No, it is showing that 8 of the 16 have reached the threshold.

Wishing don't make it so:

http://swamplot.com/8-out-of-16-houston-historic-districts-are-now-up-for-reconsideration/2010-11-18/

Actually, Marksmu is correct. He stated that all of the Heights historic districts met the threshold for a revote. That would be Heights East, West and South. Additionally, Norhill also gets a revote. Unknown at this point is whether Woodland Heights, which was not created under the new ordinance, has enough signatures to become a district. There was a big push there to rescind the signatures already submitted.

Now, the hard part begins. Since the mayor and CW Lovell saw fit to rig the revote against the will of the residents, we must urge the procrastinators and the apathetic to sign the vote card and mail it in. It can be done, but this is akin to a football team playing against the opposing team AND the refs. You have to work twice as hard as the opponent. Tell your neighbors to be on the lookout for the vote card. Anyone who wishes to help put out flyers on doors let me know.

[Marksmu]

No, it is showing that 8 of the 16 have reached the threshold.

Wishing don't make it so:

http://swamplot.com/...ion/2010-11-18/

Red is correct - I specifically said all the new districts in the heights....East, South, West all met the threshold.

[SCDesign]

We need to fight for a place at the counting table, especially since a card not returned counts as a vote for the District. I'm not saying anyone at the City is dishonest, but I can see someone forgetting a stack of vote cards while transfering them from one area to another. We need to make sure that every vote card is counted, and that every returned card is accounted for. If someone has a questions as to whether their card was counted the City should be able to say "Yes, a card was recieved from XXX Arlington St and that vote was For/Against the Ordinance". It would be easym cheap and fair, but it's going to take a fight to get it so we should start making noise about it soon.

[little frau]

We need to fight for a place at the counting table, especially since a card not returned counts as a vote for the District. I'm not saying anyone at the City is dishonest, but I can see someone forgetting a stack of vote cards while transfering them from one area to another. We need to make sure that every vote card is counted, and that every returned card is accounted for. If someone has a questions as to whether their card was counted the City should be able to say "Yes, a card was recieved from XXX Arlington St and that vote was For/Against the Ordinance". It would be easym cheap and fair, but it's going to take a fight to get it so we should start making noise about it soon.

I do not live in any of the current historic districts but I have been following this discussion

with keen interest. I suspect that my little neighborhood is on miz mayor's list for future nominations.

When the matter of returning these cards in order to vote first came up here, my initial thought was "who will do the counting?"

I know my opinion doesn't count in this but I believe SCD is right, there should be someone to protect your interests or maybe even a completely neutral third party should be counting the votes. At this point I would not be inclined to trust anyone at city level who is connected to the historic districts.

[chester77008]

I do not live in any of the current historic districts but I have been following this discussion

with keen interest. I suspect that my little neighborhood is on miz mayor's list for future nominations.

When the matter of returning these cards in order to vote first came up here, my initial thought was "who will do the counting?"

I know my opinion doesn't count in this but I believe SCD is right, there should be someone to protect your interests or maybe even a completely neutral third party should be counting the votes. At this point I would not be inclined to trust anyone at city level who is connected to the historic districts.

frau petite,

You don't need to worry about your little neighborhood turning historic at the moment, the new ordinance requires 67% consent which is not likely to happen. When Parker is elected for a second term she will find a new crusader to replace the end of term for Lovell, and once again change the ordinance, at which point it will be 51% again. You are looking at about 2 years before you need to fight the fight.

[SCDesign]

That would be true if the HAHC didn't have the power to name Historic Districts regardless of the feelings of the property owners. It would be extremely unpopular but imagine this scenerio:

Parker is reelected, knows that she has no further political future, and is still a radical preservationist at heart. So, in a final act for the greater good, she directs the HAHC to "save" a number of districts that she knows will never get 67%, as well as re-establishing all of the districts that were lost at the end of 2010. The Ordinance only allows for a re-vote this time so if she does it this there is no way to overturn what she has done. Could she have agreed to set the vote-in number at 67% because she knew it wouldn't matter?

Okay, that's very far fetched, I'll admit. But it IS POSSIBLE under this new ordinance. I find that pretty scary.

Maybe the ballots should be returned to a neutral site as well. Or a PO Box that can't be opened until a certain date. If they are returned to the Planning Department Historic Preservation Office is it possible that someone there in fear of losing their job (since a good portion of the Historic Area could be lost and the City is facing a $25M shortfall sure to be covered by layoffs) might misplace some of the ballots? Non returned ballots count as a vote for the District so nobody even needs to forge a card, they just have to ensure that one never shows up.

The possibilities for rigging this are endless...

[Tiko]

One issue that I have received conflicting answers on is regarding "remuddling", or remodels that put the wrong architectural elements on a house. A prime example (and a pet peeve of mine) is putting colonial columns on a craftsman house. Craftsman homes generally have tapered square columns. My understanding is that the ordinance will not allow you to replace those columns if they are already on the house. My neighbor said that they WANT you to go back to the original columns. However, it is still unclear whether the wording of the ordinance states that. It is also unclear how the HAHC will act.

Bill Baldwin had an example of exactly that in his presentation a month or so ago. He got denied on the column switch.

[RedScare]

HISTORIC DISTRICT RECONSIDERATION MEETING

The meeting schedule for the reconsideration hearings has been posted. This is the schedule. As predicted, the city intends to conduct these meetings and the ballot process during the holidays. 15 days from the 8th of December is December 22nd.

Avondale West and Boulevard Oaks: December 7, 2010, at 600 p.m. at

Montrose Counseling Center,

401 Branard Street.

Heights East, Heights West and Heights South: December 8, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. at

Reagan High School,

413 E. 13th Street.

First Montrose Commons To be determined

Norhill To be determined

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/docs_pdfs/HPO_Reconsider_Meetings.pdf