Jump to content

The Heights Historic Districts


Tiko

Recommended Posts

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district?

And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years.

This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

If you are as intelligent as you claim, do you honestly, (be intellectually honest here if you are capable of doing so) believe that the process of voting was legitimate?

Do you believe the outcome would be the same if a non-vote was counted as a vote to keep historic districts out?

I do not believe there is a silent majority who favor preservation. I do not believe there is a majority who favor either side of this debate. 30/35% favor preservation, 30/35% favor no restriction, and the rest are apathetic, or completely uninformed.

I believe most people just buy a house they like and live in it, and want to be left alone. I believe most people did not return the ballot because they were either uninformed, misinformed, or just did not have a stamp. Only those who were active in the process are likely to have returned the ballot. Especially with the fact that you had to provide your own stamp.

I had to make a special trip to get a stamp to return my ballot. I seldom even check my real mail. I receive absolutely nothing in the mail except for the water bill that is of any importance. Everything else I receive comes electronically, and is paid electronically. I actually pay my water bill through my bank's bill pay option because I do not have stamps ever! I am not in the minority here.

The process was not democratic, and was completely rigged to favor a specific outcome. Can you imagine the result of the 2012 presidential election if you could vote against Obama by simply not voting at all? Really? Can you imagine that!? He would be voted out by the largest margins in voting history...it would be staggering.....it would be in the 80+% range or possibly even higher! This was no different....they conducted a rigged vote, during a very busy holiday season designed specifically to get the outcome they got. I actually bet they were surprised that the response against the ordinance was as high as it was.

This is not even taking into consideration how the votes were counted...we do not know. Did they count votes who may have left a zero off their hcad acct #?? I dont know....but I surely would not put it past them.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a 1920 bungalow in a protected (fully!!!) district. How about you? Do you even live in the Heights? In a historic house? In a historic district?

And when I say "we", I am speaking on behalf of the silent majority in the Heights that are routinely shouted down by anti-preservationists on message boards and in public forums. The fight for historic districts has gone on for years.

This process has never been about the best way to preserve the Heights. It has always been a second bite at the apple for the builders, realtors and architects who originally fought the historic districts to try to undo what had already been done.

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thoroughly enjoying reading about how all you anit-preservationists are going to do this that and the other thing. It is over. You had your remedy. You failed. Failed. All you had to do was get a simple majority to reject the new ordinance. That should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if this ordinance was such a radical violation of people's property rights. File all the lawsuits you want. It is well settled law that historic districts are not takings. And talk all you want about how you are going to get rid of Mayor Parker. According to off the cuff, it looks like she will run for reelection virtually unopposed. No one with any shot at beating her has taken any steps to run and time is running out. Good luck trying to get a candidate to run on an issue that affects a few hundred people in a City of three million (and don't even give me the argument that the Mayor intends on making every inch of the City a historic district, that is about as bad as the paint color argument).

It is over. You lost. You lost because you did not respect the intelligence of the homeowners in the Heights. All the mailings about how the historic ordinance would destroy property values, dictate HVAC systems, and lead to decay in the Heights made it clear that the blue sign crowd really wanted "no" to both historic districts and historic preservation and "yes" to higher realtor commissions, builder and architect profits.

Your clan couldn't have gotten even 5% support in 30 days and thanks to the Mayor's actions in ignoring the ordinance provisions, you got a free pass. That won't hold up however. She had to follow the law and she didn't. Good luck with that. As far as shoot fish in a barrel, it took you YEARS AND YEAR to cheat and lie and harrass your neighbors to get to 51% for a completely different ordinance that didn't have any consequences. The ordinance opposition wasn't willing to stoop to your tactics. They sent 1/4 of the number of flyers your group sent and still managed to get 35 + percent in 30 days. No way you could have acheived those kinds of numbers and everyone knows it so your claims give us all a good chuckle.

As far as no opposition for Parker, you keep right on thinking that way. We love that you think those interested in her job don't smell blood in the water. Opposition to Parker is not just here and not just about this issue. Every article in the newspaper has people blogging and posting about how much they regret voting for her. She didn't win by much and her image is suffering because of her arrogance and the bad advice she gets. So, keep up the arrogance about that too. We need a good laugh every day.

The realtors have said over and over that they aren't affected by whether a property is not in a historic district although those nice restrictions you want affect the sellers of old homes that need work. No one cares but you so keep on thinking they do. They've expressed concern that the areas surrounding the districts will continue to see improvements while the properties in the district will see much slower growth, which is of course, what you want because you don't have two sticks to rub together so you fear rising property values - essentially what is at issue here for your group, not preservation. So your claims just prove your total lack of understanding of anything related to this ordinance. Again, a good laugh though.

Yes yes, we know you think you won, we lost, blah, blah, blah. It will continue to amuse everyone while we move on to the next efforts to get real due process from people who can't be bullied or bought by promises of political favors by Parker or scared off by your little band of hysterical preservationists. We LOVE LOVE LOVE it. Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

Parker wouldn't allow a straight vote or any expression of support because she knew there wasn't enough support to fill a bucket. That was the ONLY reason it wasn't put up for a real vote. Parker should have followed the laws of this state and her own ordinance and the fact that she didn't makes the whole thing vulnerable. But no one cares what you think or how much you strut around the Internet claiming this false victory. In the end, when the fat lady sings, you will have to shut up and listen to the sound of real democracy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a 1925 bungalow, along a street which is 90+% original bungalows, not in a historic district. I am in woodland heights, but outside of what would be the historic district if they turn woodland heights into a historic district. I've been heavily involved with the neighborhood for 4 years (the same length of time I've lived in Texas) , lived here for close to 3, and been a homeowner for a year and a half ish. I bought my house because I'm obsessed with architecture and I love the style/quality of the craftsmen bungalows. I don't want to see bungalows destroyed, and I'd gladly support strengthening of historic districts if they were reasonable. The city should be working with us to help keep these houses standing, not against us (if you fail to see how this is working against us you are more rediculous than I previously thought). I believe having clear cut rules such as minimum lot size, minimum setback would prevent a majority of what is generally feared (mcmansions on small lots). The city should be making it EASIER to renovate your historic home by providing legitimate tax breaks for renovations. Imagine if the city provided incentives for builders to renovate bungalows, I would have no problem requiring the plans to be approved by the HAHC for legitmate tax breaks/incentives. Maybe waive some permit fees? I'm quite certain that a majority of people could support something along these lines. But this isn't want the preservationist wanted, they wanted it their way, they wanted it now, they didn't care who they pissed off to get it done. Congratulations on your victory. You got what you wanted, but you also caused a major turmoil in our neighborhood. Is saving a few more bungalows worth pissing off a lot of your neighbors? One of the greatest parts of the neighborhood is how ecclectic it is, and I believe that the passing of the Historic Ordinance has done a great blow to that part of the neighborhood. Is physical history more valuable to you than cultural? From reading your post before, i'm guessing so.

As far saying "you only had to get a simple majority"... I refuse to believe you really feel that way. The 2008 presidential election was a record setting vote, ~56% of voters voted. If non voting would have cast a vote for spaghetti monster, guess who'd be president. And this wasn't even a vote, you had to send in filled out forms and etc. within 15 days during the holidays. If your such a majority (as you claim) why not just put it to a straight vote?

Your internet tough guy threats are hilarious.

How can you support Mayor Parker???.... she is pro-Walmart!

These folks only care about the structure, not the people living in them. You should have read the blogs following the fire and death of a beloved neighbor. All they could talk about is her "inappropriate" home. It was sick, sick, sick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your clan couldn't have gotten even 5% support in 30 days and thanks to the Mayor's actions in ignoring the ordinance provisions, you got a free pass. That won't hold up however. She had to follow the law and she didn't. Good luck with that. As far as shoot fish in a barrel, it took you YEARS AND YEAR to cheat and lie and harrass your neighbors to get to 51% for a completely different ordinance that didn't have any consequences. The ordinance opposition wasn't willing to stoop to your tactics. They sent 1/4 of the number of flyers your group sent and still managed to get 35 + percent in 30 days. No way you could have acheived those kinds of numbers and everyone knows it so your claims give us all a good chuckle.

As far as no opposition for Parker, you keep right on thinking that way. We love that you think those interested in her job don't smell blood in the water. Opposition to Parker is not just here and not just about this issue. Every article in the newspaper has people blogging and posting about how much they regret voting for her. She didn't win by much and her image is suffering because of her arrogance and the bad advice she gets. So, keep up the arrogance about that too. We need a good laugh every day.

The realtors have said over and over that they aren't affected by whether a property is not in a historic district although those nice restrictions you want affect the sellers of old homes that need work. No one cares but you so keep on thinking they do. They've expressed concern that the areas surrounding the districts will continue to see improvements while the properties in the district will see much slower growth, which is of course, what you want because you don't have two sticks to rub together so you fear rising property values - essentially what is at issue here for your group, not preservation. So your claims just prove your total lack of understanding of anything related to this ordinance. Again, a good laugh though.

Yes yes, we know you think you won, we lost, blah, blah, blah. It will continue to amuse everyone while we move on to the next efforts to get real due process from people who can't be bullied or bought by promises of political favors by Parker or scared off by your little band of hysterical preservationists. We LOVE LOVE LOVE it. Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best.

Yes, and here is the last laugh: HA!

It is over. You lost. Your scare tactics did not work. Your lies about paint color and HVAC systems did not fool anyone.

Realtors aren't affected by whether a property is in a district or not? Haaaa haa haa haa ha ha ha ha!!!!!! Right. And it is just a freak accident that the one realtor that told me personally that all bungalows are only worth what a builder would pay for them just happens to be the leader of the anti-preservation movement. If you think realtors would rather sell bungalows for 300-500k than 3500 sq ft Mc Vics for 800-1mil, you are completely bonkers.

And you actually buy the argument that the Heights is going to see slower growth? Have you stepped outside your door recently? Do you actually live in the Heights? The neighborhood is absolutely booming. Restaurants are coming in, new retail is going up all around (some good, some really bad) and plenty of people are putting money into rehabbing historic properties. One on Ashland is on the market for 695k. Outside of a historic district, it would have been a tear down. If single family renovations on the market for 695k are examples of slow growth, then bring it on! The fact of the matter is that well restored historic homes in the Heights absolutely fly off the shelf. My friends have recently purchased bungalows admist all the historic ordinance fight and had to bid up by 10% to land a sale.

And I don't fear rising property values. I am counting on them to help finance an addition. But, I bet you have never challenged your HCAD assessment and voted for Prop 1. As for the dig on my income (even though you don't even know me), it is exactly what I would expect from the anti-preservationists.

The fact is that to this date no one has had the balls to take the necessary steps to start a campaign to challenge Parker. I don't think she is god's gift to Mayors. But, she does get stuff done. Sometimes the Margaret Thatcher approach works. She got the drainage initiative passed and is doing some serious heavy lifting to get the budget balanced. She won't lose reelection if the challenger's platform is that Mayor Parker doesn't play nice with other council members and supports historic preservation. People can blog all they want. But someone will have to get the guts to run against her. So far, that person is no one.

Good luck with the legal challenge. Check out Penn Central v. NY. It is well settled law. And go back to grade school and learn what an ordinance is. It is a law of a municipality that can be changed by a vote of the governing body of the municipality, even if the reatlors and property rights nuts scream and yell about it. You all wanted a resurvey, got one that was on much better terms than originally proposed, failed to get the votes and now are blaiming everyone else but yourselves for your failed campaign. You lost. You only have yourselves to blame. The Heights is now fully protected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't an election. It was a re-survey. The rules were clear. In fact, the resurvey process was modified a number of times by council to make it better for the anti-preservationists. It wasn't put up to an election because that would have made it easier to repeal a district than to create one. If you want to overrule what my elected official has done, you need to get organized and get a majority to do it. The anti-preservationists failed because residents in the Heights actually do support the revised ordinance and are tired of all the problems the anti-preservationists (many of whom do not live in the Heights) have caused in this process.

And you are right that there could have been a better ordinance with better tax breaks and a complete waiver of permit fees instead of just discounts on permit fees. But the debate was never about getting to the best possible ordinance. It was about killing it off so the realtors could maximize their commissions. Without this interfernce, we would have probably been able to get a much better ordinance. The fact of the matter is that Heights residents are so tired of the McMansion abuse that they would rather deal with a flawed ordinance and government bureacracy than see the Heights turned into Bellaire, substituting McVics for McMansions.

The rules were very clear. And that's why we were all pissed off about it. They were clearly rigged. We aren't anti-preservationists... we are anti-ordinance. The debate WAS about getting a better ordinance. If you remember, there were several revisions to the ordinance before it was approved. I think the biggest thing that pisses everyone off is the HAHC deciding if something is "appropriate". That is NOT what anyone signed up for (to originally get the historic district designation).

The FACT of the matter is the historic districts only make up part of the Heights, so what you are going to cause is a greater concentration of McMansion's outside of the historic districts but still within the greater heights area. In my eyes, the neighborhood isn't limited to the 4 or so streets within my house, its the entire area (including shady acres, brookesmith, timbergrove, etc.) Good luck ever getting any other neighborhoods to become Historic Districts. If you would have done this process with integrity/honesty/reason it would have been much easier to protect the entire Greater Heights area from having more mcVics on small lots. Not just 4 clusters of a few streets. You did not win, you just made the entire neighborhood lose.

The funniest part of this is if it hadn't been for the McVics/Townhomes that you were trying to stop you wouldn't have ever moved here in the first place. You would not have moved here in the 80s-90s. Because of the gentrification of the neighborhood, it made it more desirable which is why so many more middle/upper class people started to move into the neighborhood. Now that the 'hood is doing well, safer/better schools/cleaner, you cut the hand off the one that fed it. I'm pretty new to the neighborhood (like yourself) but at least I recognize how the neighborhood got to where it is now. I can see this as a liberal, young, DINK yuppie (hope that doesn't throw off your perception of me too much)

Edited by SilverJK
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules were very clear. And that's why we were all pissed off about it. They were clearly rigged. We aren't anti-preservationists... we are anti-ordinance. The debate WAS about getting a better ordinance. If you remember, there were several revisions to the ordinance before it was approved. I think the biggest thing that pisses everyone off is the HAHC deciding if something is "appropriate". That is NOT what anyone signed up for (to originally get the historic district designation).

The FACT of the matter is the historic districts only make up part of the Heights, so what you are going to cause is a greater concentration of McMansion's outside of the historic districts but still within the greater heights area. In my eyes, the neighborhood isn't limited to the 4 or so streets within my house, its the entire area (including shady acres, brookesmith, timbergrove, etc.) Good luck ever getting any other neighborhoods to become Historic Districts. If you would have done this process with integrity/honesty/reason it would have been much easier to protect the entire Greater Heights area from having more mcVics on small lots. Not just 4 clusters of a few streets. You did not win, you just made the entire neighborhood lose.

The funniest part of this is if it hadn't been for the McVics/Townhomes that you were trying to stop you wouldn't have ever moved here in the first place. You would not have moved here in the 80s-90s. Because of the gentrification of the neighborhood, it made it more desirable which is why so many more middle/upper class people started to move into the neighborhood. Now that the 'hood is doing well, safer/better schools/cleaner, you cut the hand off the one that fed it. I'm pretty new to the neighborhood (like yourself) but at least I recognize how the neighborhood got to where it is now. I can see this as a liberal, young, DINK yuppie (hope that doesn't throw off your perception of me too much)

I agree with this. It may be time to buy some more property that is not protected! The builders don't want to abandon the Heights - they want to stay, its the place to be. The properties outside of the Ordinance are going to go up in value disproportionately to the ones inside the districts.

The 11th - 14th streets from say Nicholson to Ashland, with a cut through Ashland for the awful ordinance covered area are going to be prime real estate soon....Good chance Heights Annex, and the west side of Shepard start improving quickly as well...the only thing that has been holding that area back is the flood plain, IMO.

The only thing preventing the area south of 11th from being just as hot is the outpatient mental facility on Waverly at 10th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As kind of an aside, while driving through the Heights (on the way back to my bungalow where I've lived for 15 years with the blue sign still out in front), I noticed that most of the homes with the yellow signs out front are hideously over-landscaped. I'm not talking about lots of manicured landscaping, I'm talking about overgrown rat harborages -- maybe time to get neighborhood protection out to let them know what $500/day fines are all about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As kind of an aside, while driving through the Heights (on the way back to my bungalow where I've lived for 15 years with the blue sign still out in front), I noticed that most of the homes with the yellow signs out front are hideously over-landscaped. I'm not talking about lots of manicured landscaping, I'm talking about overgrown rat harborages -- maybe time to get neighborhood protection out to let them know what $500/day fines are all about!

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

I wouldn't be so sure that the areas around the Heights are going to experience a rapid growth now. I'm predicting an overall slowdown of growth in the area and north through Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. Why? Because with this ordinance it only takes 10% of the residents to submit an application and start the process toward becoming an HD; and once the application is submitted, regardless of the validity of the applicaiton, the area is treated as an HD. I don't think any new HD's will be created,\ but I think that the strategy from now on will be to get that 10% to submit applications, delay the survey process for as long as possible, and once the survey fails to create the HD to have the shortest possible time between then and the next time the application can be submitted. I can't see investing my money in an area that has the potential to be paralized for 8+ months out of the year by 10% of the property owners.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom either, at least in the Historic Districts. At least I know the situation there, unlike the other areas that are going to be in chaos from now on. This could even be a good thing over the short term. I think a lot of the fence sitters are going to move now and do remodels to get their houses on the market soon. That may spur some new buyers to come in with the idea of buying up unimproved properties and fixing them up. It'll stop the huge property value increases, and will really slow down, if not stop, the speculation, but it could be okay if everything goes right. And I honestly hope it does work out that way because I love the Heights. I'm not betting on it though. I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

Edited by SCDesign
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

I wouldn't be so sure that the areas around the Heights are going to experience a rapid growth now. I'm predicting an overall slowdown of growth in the area and north through Garden Oaks and Oak Forest. Why? Because with this ordinance it only takes 10% of the residents to submit an application and start the process toward becoming an HD; and once the application is submitted, regardless of the validity of the applicaiton, the area is treated as an HD. I don't think any new HD's will be created,\ but I think that the strategy from now on will be to get that 10% to submit applications, delay the survey process for as long as possible, and once the survey fails to create the HD to have the shortest possible time between then and the next time the application can be submitted. I can't see investing my money in an area that has the potential to be paralized for 8+ months out of the year by 10% of the property owners.

I don't think it's all doom and gloom either, at least in the Historic Districts. At least I know the situation there, unlike the other areas that are going to be in chaos from now on. This could even be a good thing over the short term. I think a lot of the fence sitters are going to move now and do remodels to get their houses on the market soon. That may spur some new buyers to come in with the idea of buying up unimproved properties and fixing them up. It'll stop the huge property value increases, and will really slow down, if not stop, the speculation, but it could be okay if everything goes right. And I honestly hope it does work out that way because I love the Heights. I'm not betting on it though. I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

I dont think builders will stop...they just will not buy a lot until they are ready to build upon it. The process between purchase and the start of construction needs to be very fast to ensure a new submittal of 10% would not catch them with their pants down. As soon as the lot closes a permit should be applied for....Its my understanding that once a permit has issued the rules can not change in the middle of the build, even if the actual construction has not begun.

Pre planned & designed homes rather than semi-custom would be more the norm simply because the floor plan can be easily dropped into the survey of a lot that meets its footprint.

I would think the new homes, which are selling great, would entertain a premium due to decreased supply because only a few builders could afford to have a floor plan ready to go within days of purchase of a lot....The smaller builders without floor plans of their own already ready would be forced to other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think builders will stop...they just will not buy a lot until they are ready to build upon it. The process between purchase and the start of construction needs to be very fast to ensure a new submittal of 10% would not catch them with their pants down. As soon as the lot closes a permit should be applied for....Its my understanding that once a permit has issued the rules can not change in the middle of the build, even if the actual construction has not begun.

Pre planned & designed homes rather than semi-custom would be more the norm simply because the floor plan can be easily dropped into the survey of a lot that meets its footprint.

I would think the new homes, which are selling great, would entertain a premium due to decreased supply because only a few builders could afford to have a floor plan ready to go within days of purchase of a lot....The smaller builders without floor plans of their own already ready would be forced to other areas.

If you have cash that would work, but if you need to finance you will always have a 30 day window where you will be exposed. That 10% can submit anytime they want, not just on certain dates like when submitting a plan for CoA review. You can put a stipulation in the contract that gets you out even up to the date of closing, but if you exercise that too often you may start having trouble with your lender and title company. You are correct abut the pre-planned houses though. Expect to see a lot more tract like homes anywhere areound the HDs. Of course, most of them are pretty tract-like already. Sigh, I'm going to miss the fun we could have with architecture in the Heights. It was an original, exciting and fun place to be; now it's just going to be a boring throwback slowly devolving into a homogamous 1920's Sears & Roebuck catalogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the builders are going to pull out and the housing prices are going to fall like a stone.

I don't think that will happen for the Heights as a whole. The historic designation doesn't change the fact that the city's population continues to grow, nor the fact that the the Heights is still perceived by many as a desirable neighborhood that is close and convenient to the CBD/Montrose/Uptown. I think some elements of the ordinance will make existing homes more desirable (i.e. - eliminating the risk of higher-density development in neighboring lots).

But I do think the ordinance presents added challenges, particularly for less-desireable properties. Small, unremarkable, or dilapidated that were previously and justifiably tear-down candidates are now expandable only through limited and disproportionate camelback/rear/side additions. I fear that some design guidelines may stifle creativity in an attempt to preserve some structures and features that aren't necessarily worth preserving.

I already live in a deed-restricted neighborhood, so I'm not crying over the ordinance. It adds a new layer of bureaucracy, but it doesn't fundamentally affect me since my home is already grandfathered in with a seamless front addition that was made decades ago. But if I had bought a small dilapidated cottage prior to this ordinance in a non-deed restricted area, with the plan to replace it once I had saved up the money, I would definitely be peeved by having my hands tied and the opportunity taken away from me and replaced with the option for only a rear addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! This guy/girl is a (edit *a very derogitory word starting with a d*) regardless of which side you are on.

Why would you call me a douchebag or a dickhead or whatever d-word you were referring to? #1, if you notice, we seem to be on the same side of the preservation debate. #2, I could post a number of examples of overgrown landscaping at yellow-sign houses, including one of the hahc board members. While some of it is a matter of taste, there are legitimate reasons that the city code prohibits out-of-control vegetation. I thought it was relevant since these are the people that will be imposing their architectural judgement on the rest of us.

And the remark I made about the $500/day fine for overgrown vegetation was a comparison to the fine for violating the rules of the architecture-police.

Edited by heights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you actually buy the argument that the Heights is going to see slower growth? Have you stepped outside your door recently? Do you actually live in the Heights? The neighborhood is absolutely booming. Restaurants are coming in, new retail is going up all around (some good, some really bad) and plenty of people are putting money into rehabbing historic properties. One on Ashland is on the market for 695k. Outside of a historic district, it would have been a tear down. If single family renovations on the market for 695k are examples of slow growth, then bring it on! The fact of the matter is that well restored historic homes in the Heights absolutely fly off the shelf. My friends have recently purchased bungalows admist all the historic ordinance fight and had to bid up by 10% to land a sale.

And I don't fear rising property values. I am counting on them to help finance an addition. But, I bet you have never challenged your HCAD assessment and voted for Prop 1. As for the dig on my income (even though you don't even know me), it is exactly what I would expect from the anti-preservationists.

The fact is that to this date no one has had the balls to take the necessary steps to start a campaign to challenge Parker. I don't think she is god's gift to Mayors. But, she does get stuff done. Sometimes the Margaret Thatcher approach works. She got the drainage initiative passed and is doing some serious heavy lifting to get the budget balanced. She won't lose reelection if the challenger's platform is that Mayor Parker doesn't play nice with other council members and supports historic preservation. People can blog all they want. But someone will have to get the guts to run against her. So far, that person is no one.

Good luck with the legal challenge. Check out Penn Central v. NY. It is well settled law. And go back to grade school and learn what an ordinance is. It is a law of a municipality that can be changed by a vote of the governing body of the municipality, even if the reatlors and property rights nuts scream and yell about it. You all wanted a resurvey, got one that was on much better terms than originally proposed, failed to get the votes and now are blaiming everyone else but yourselves for your failed campaign. You lost. You only have yourselves to blame. The Heights is now fully protected.

All this wild speculation is hilarious. I do live in the Heights and in a bungalow and have a blue sign in my yard. My home has been renovated and expanded, and not with a ridiculous, ugly, poor design concept "camelback." And I protest my value every year and voted against Prop 1, as if that has anything to do with anything.

No one has stepped up to run because they had to wait UNTIL JANUARY but your clear lack of knowledge about the politcal process hasn't stopped you from making any other uninformed, absurd statements so feel free to make a few more. My dad always says it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Your dad should have taught you the same practice.

Know all about Penn Central and a whole lot more cases. I'm not going to explain anything here for obvious reasons. It will be much more fun to watch you explode into a pile of dust when the time comes for the last laugh. But you are giong to have to do better than just the Penn Central case if you think that is all there is to it.

So, time will tell. The rest of the folks here just need know there are a number of remedies in the works. S3mh, you should simply keep repeating to yourself - they lost, we won, they lost, we won, they lost, we won. I've heard you can actually change brain chemistry if you tell yourself something long enough and often enough. You might actually convince yourself. While you all are telling yourself you won, they lost, we will be continuing our efforts. And enjoying your arrogant boasting for a good giggle. I had a very good one today as we found another "ooops" and it's a doozie! But you are right about one thing, the law of a municipality can be changed by that municipality. We are so glad you understand that part, at least.

As much as I've enjoyed this little banter with you, I must return to more productive activities related to the ordinance and the rigged process we were dealt. The rest of the readers/posters can be comforted in the old adage that good things come to those who wait. More to come kiddies, more to come so enjoy the ride!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so for any potential lawyer types, does the state exert the same control over cities, as the national government does over the states?

in the US constitution there is a provision that says (basically) that a state can't make a law that goes against the US constitution, does our state constitution have those same provisions against city ordinances?

if it does there is a GLARING problem with the changes made to the historic district, at least from what I've seen from the little I dug around in the states constitution and codes.

anyway, I work with computers all day, not law books, so I don't know quite as much as people who get paid to do it, so in the mean time, I'll just sit back and hope my neighborhood isn't sucked in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. A city is bound by its city charter, the state constitution and the US Constitution. There are some pretty big problems with this ordinance. Fighting it can get expensive, which is why we tried to simply beat it through the vote, even with the deck stacked against us. Most of city council agrees with us. The question is whether a majority would actually vote their convictions. There is a lot of pressure put on some members to give the mayor what she wants.

Most lawyers (including myself) feel the outcome of a lawsuit would be favorable. The vote did not even follow the ordinance dictating how the vote would take place. That's not even getting into the constitutionality of the ordinance. As for Supreme Court cases, our little petulent friend s3mh seems to have forgotten that the ordinance must also comply with the Texas Constitution, which is much more protective of property rights than the US Constitution. This case will not turn on US law, but Texas law. We just wish we did not have to go that route. But we will.

I should also point out that cities only get their powers from Texas law.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when this started we were told that if the architectural plans were in process those plans would be grandfathered with the 90 day waiver. I'm waiting to hear back to see if that still stands or if it will expire within a certain time.

I'm worried that, with the court battle, the City will delay as much as possible. Question to any attornies here: what do you think the odds are of getting an injunction on the enforcement of the ordinance until the trial is settled?

heights: my problem is with anyone siccing the City on someone. That's what this whole thing is about: one group of people going to the City to force others to do what they want rather than having the stones to confront each other and handle it like "men". Regardless of who is running to tattle to the principle, they are a "d" in my book. I'll give you the benefit and say that is a "d" idea adn you probably wouldn't do it. If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

or at least have a yard sign made that says something to the effect of:

Stop Heights Overgrown Landscaping!

...

(Yes, this means you owner of the 1927 bungalow on the corner of heights and 11th!!!)

...

(you could have rats living in that clump of weeds!)

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can i coin the term McCamelback?

The earlier mentioned house on Ashland went from 800 to 2800 sq ft. Just the addition is around twice the size of most bungalows. Yeah, thats REALLY historic.

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

You will take the camelback....I think most would prefer not to. Camelbacks are hideous.

I believe the greater population of Houston, or for that matter the US, or possibly even the world would prefer to own a nice new large Victorian style home. Your use of the term McVic is derogatory in nature, similar to the way that I claim you have a well maintained shack because you live in a small old house. You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

I dont really believe that, but it makes my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will take the camelback....I think most would prefer not to. Camelbacks are hideous.

I believe the greater population of Houston, or for that matter the US, or possibly even the world would prefer to own a nice new large Victorian style home. Your use of the term McVic is derogatory in nature, similar to the way that I claim you have a well maintained shack because you live in a small old house. You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

I dont really believe that, but it makes my point.

And the greater population of Houston can own a McVic. They will just need to build it on one of the millions of acres of land in the City that are not protected by a historic ordinance. Or on one of the hundreds and hundreds of lots in the Heights that are not protected by the ordinance (yeah, I know, save your typing with the "entire city will be historic district because only 10% can trigger . . . ").

Did you really just now figure out that the term "McVic" is derogatory? Sorry about that. It was easier to type than having to hammer out "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction" every time. You may think historic houses are just shacks. That is your problem. Those well maintained shacks sell like hotcakes and people pour tens of thousands into restoring them every day. And now their investment is protected because they won't find themselve sandwiched between gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heights: my problem is with anyone siccing the City on someone. That's what this whole thing is about: one group of people going to the City to force others to do what they want rather than having the stones to confront each other and handle it like "men". Regardless of who is running to tattle to the principle, they are a "d" in my book. I'll give you the benefit and say that is a "d" idea adn you probably wouldn't do it. If you think your neighbors yard is a problem go talk to them and figure out why it wis what it is, and if they just can't do any better offer to help fix it. THAT is what neighbors and neighborhoods are about.

It's not my neighbor's yard that's the problem. It's some yards belonging to people who are advertising with their yellow yard signs that they support an ordinance which allows a chosen few to tell other property owners what is acceptable. And designating the use of hardiplank and front additions as a nuisance has no basis in science like the fact that overgrown vegetation does provide harbor for vermin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would support a more restrictive ordinance, right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the ordinance is a gross violation of private property rights and then criticize it for not going far enough. You are just proving the point that the ordinance is a reasonable middle ground that allows people to update bungalows to suit their needs while preserving the original structure. And a you can feel all proud of your McCamelback term, but the Heights will take the camelback over the giant McVics any day.

way to miss the entire point... you used that as an example of how great the ordinance is because you can still build something like that. I think it is just as damaging to the 'hood as a McVic. I'm also really not to sure about why people complain so much about the "crammed" look of the McVic... i live on a 6,350 sq. ft lot, and my original footprint bungalow is quite close to my neighbors... I guess it just doens't look as bad because we aren't all two stories.(both my neighbors are original 1925 two stories).

The McCamelback look is atrocious if you look at it from the neighbors backyard...

McCamelback = "gaudy, out of place, oversized, selfish, block busting, tree razing, character killing, phony, lazy, suburban wannabe, new construction"

Quit speaking for the entire neighborhood, you OBVIOUSLY don't speak for all of us (or even a majority).

I can have it both ways... i claim it is a gross violation of property rights, and i make fun of how it forces all additions to be uglier than what a tasteful McVic would be. I don't want it to not allow these additions, I DON'T WANT THE ORDINANCE AT ALL.

Sidenote... Are you Kanye West? You keep trying to act like your "the voice of a generation (neighborhood)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You like to call it a bungalow but I think that is just a trendy word for a well maintained shack.

Weren't most bungalows of that era houses you ordered from a catalog anyway?

The Sears and Roebuck 1920 bungalow, or the Montgomery Wards 1920 bungalow?

I mean, granted you could also order heroin from the same catalogs, but anyway, it's pretty silly to think people are trying to immortalize houses that was purchased from a freaking catalog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, we love our McVic. And I believe there will be a time when people will refer to houses in the Heights as "pre-ordinance McVics" and "post-ordinance McVics."

I really like the posts that point out that what people are calling "historic structures" (or "contributing" to use the ordinance language, which begs the question "contributing to what?") are nothing more than "old structures." "Historic" can mean lots of things, including old, but let's stop dressing up "old" with a fancy name. Surely that's the meaning we are using if a Jim Walter home is "contributing." That's a joke, right? I don't even need to get to the catalog homes, because the Jim Walter example is too good. This is the "old ordinance" and I now live in an "old district."

As we work toward reversing this bad outcome, I plan to embrace the ordinance. Specifically, Section 33-254 (Demonlition by neglect) will become my new friend. Be on notice that if you own an "old structure" in my "old district" you should make sure it does not have any of the issues listed in 33-254(a). The hardware stores should stock up on supplies, especially paint and brushes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't most bungalows of that era houses you ordered from a catalog anyway?

The Sears and Roebuck 1920 bungalow, or the Montgomery Wards 1920 bungalow?

I mean, granted you could also order heroin from the same catalogs, but anyway, it's pretty silly to think people are trying to immortalize houses that was purchased from a freaking catalog.

And you are probably also the guy who goes to a Rothko exhibit and says "I could've done that."

You are a little late to the dance if you want to make the case that there is no merit to Crafstmen style architecture. You will just have to again say to yourself "I could've done that".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you are probably also the guy who goes to a Rothko exhibit and says "I could've done that."

You are a little late to the dance if you want to make the case that there is no merit to Crafstmen style architecture. You will just have to again say to yourself "I could've done that".

Not making a case for anything, just stating facts.

You very likely live in a house that was ordered from a catalog. They weren't much different from a house that you can buy off of 45 south and after they deliver to your house someone takes off the wheels.

It's okay, I very likely live in one too, but it was built in 1930.

Aside from the artwork I saw on exhibit in the Rothko Chapel (I found it rather boring), I am generally a fan of Rothko artwork. It's not my favorite by any means. I don't expect others to appreciate it, understand it (I really don't, I appreciate art, not study it), or like it.

I'm not going to push for a city ordinance that makes everyone put a Rothko print in their living room whether or not something like that would make my house worth more.

As far as Craftsman (truthfully, if it was a style you thought was so worthy of historic relevance, you'd at least know how to spell it) Architecture of my house, I love the big fireplace, and built-in bookshelves that are designed into my living room, I love the huge baseboards and doorframing, and I like the nice front porch.

However, as much as I appreciate my house, it isn't my place to expect my neighbors to appreciate it as much as I do, so if they want to rip them out and put in a McWhatever I don't care, I'll be happy in my house and enjoy life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...